Gary Novosielski

Yes, that would be in order. For some reason I had assumed that she had made the purchase and was seeking reimbursement for it, which would be easier to deal with by simply denying the reimbursement.

Also, be aware that after the ballots are counted, the tellers' report, as outlined in RONR, is read aloud by the reporting teller, then is repeated by the chair, who announces the result, and is recorded in the minutes. This report includes a complete vote count for all candidates, number required to elect, number of ballots cast, number of illegal votes if any, etc. See the example in RONR.

That's not how I read p. 468. And in any case I said it would be proper, not mandatory. I think this could depend on whether one thought that the notation would be beneficial to clarity, for which I think a case could be made.

RONR does not use the term Task Force, but this would correspond to the creation of a Special Committee--one which is created to perform a certain task, and to rise and report when the task is completed. The motion that the committee not rise until its task is complete amounts to instructions to the committee. It is not necessary to adopt a special rule of order or a bylaw provision to maintain continuity. RONR (on, I believe page 502) allows this to be done simply by instructing the committee, if this is a special, as opposed to a standing committee. So there is no requirement that the members of this committee be replaced. And even if it were necessary to disband the committee (as is the case for standing committees, or committees that report to a body whose membership changes at designated times, such as a board, there is no rule against reappointing the same members to the committee.

Failing to achieve a 2/3 vote when a 2/3 vote is required is undoubtedly a breach, but it is not a continuing breach. Therefore, the Point of Order must be raised in a timely manner, i.e., at the time when the breach occurs. Afterward, it is too late. If the previous notice had not been properly given, that would be a continuing breach, and it is not too late to raise a Point of Order at a future meeting..

But if, as is likely, the assembly took a Recess in order to watch the skit, it would be proper to record that in the minutes.

Yes it does, and I'm getting annoyed at the repeated name changes.

Yes. My thought is that it depends on what the bylaws say. So, what do the bylaws say?

A member who is doing three jobs is still but one member. Such a member counts as one member toward a quorum, and has but one vote when voting occurs. And that's just me, but you may notice a pattern developing.

That's not how it works. Answers are responded to here in the forum. It is not generally true that a motion that is not voted on automatically fails. But without further information it's not possible to say for certain what rules apply to your situation. What actually did happen?

Not only does RONR limit such behavior, it prohibits it outright. Claiming there are no by-law restrictions is nonsense. I'm sure there are no by-law restrictions against her taking a vacation to Mexico with PTO funds, either. The President has only such authority as the bylaws provide. And the fact that the organization has an annual budget means that the membership (which a superior body to the board and officers) has restricted expenditures to those areas that it approved in the budget. So the President has violated both the bylaws and the explicit instructions of the membership. See RONR Chapter XX on how to remove rogue officers.

Even though it may appear that a number board members must be removed, it is often necessary to remove only one, as long as the reason for removal is made clear. This has been known to clarify the situation for the remaining members, making further removals unnecessary.

And where did the president get the authority to accept these resignations?

Well, we're guessing what your bylaws say about their own amendment. Whatever your rules are for amending the bylaws, those would have to be followed.

No. Without any bylaw, special meetings cannot be held. But with enough support you could amend the bylaws.

Perhaps as a projectile.

Refining the procedure a bit: Mr. Katz's description is correct if different offices are voted on separately. However, if one combination ballot is used for several offices, then someone elected to more than one office must choose one. The offices not so chosen must be voted on again. However, if your rules do not forbid it, the multi-winner can run for any of those offices, and may be elected to them after all. It's just not possible to win more than one office per ballot.

Thank you for sharing.

Resistance is futyle.

Yes, five votes are required in order to meet a majority of the entire membership. It's not "because" you are using option b). You are always using both options, and if either one of them is met, the motion passes. So, presuming previous notice was given, a 2-1 vote would pass the motion because it is 2/3 of those present and voting--option a) And yes, in this case, the vote passes on option a) even though it does not pass option b). EITHER of the thresholds will suffice to pass the motion; it is not required to meet both.

Okay, how about: STATE, DEBATE, RECAPITULATE, EVALUATE, ESTIMATE (or TABULATE); ANNUNCIATE; EXPLICATE ?

Perhaps not, but this is at least cause for guarded optimism.

No, not a simple majority; the language says a majority of those present, not present and voting. This make it essentially impossible to abstain, since abstentions will have the effect of No votes.

Oh, brother.

A simple majority does not suffice in any case. What is often called a "simple" majority, which RONR calls a majority vote means a vote of a majority of those present and voting. Only the votes actually cast count. Members who abstain, or who are absent entirely do not affect the vote at all (so long as a quorum is present). All that is necessary is that there be more Yes votes than No votes. A vote of 1-0 is sufficient to pass a motion. A Special Rule of Order (SRO) cannot be passed by a "simple" majority. A vote of a majority of the entire membership, which is the alternate choice for passing a SRO is different. The threshold depends only on the size of the entire membership of the body. For a board of nine, passing a motion requires five Yes votes. It makes no difference how many are present, how many vote No, how many abstain, how many are asleep, how many are absent--five votes are required. For a small board where everyone is usually present and everyone usually votes, the two can seem very similar. But the definitions are different. Suppose for a board of nine, the quorum is five, and five members are present. If everyone votes, a motion could be passed by a majority vote of 3-2. But that would not be enough to adopt a SRO, because it does not satisfy a majority of the entire membership. In order to reach that threshold, all five present members would have to vote Yes. It might seem that a majority of the entire membership will always be easier to satisfy than a 2/3 vote. If all nine members vote a 2/3 vote would require 6-3 or better to pass. And 6 is greater than five. But if three members abstain, or are absent, a 2/3 vote can be achieved by a 4-2 vote. (Of course the 2/3 threshold for passing a SRO also requires previous notice.) Does that clear it up, or make it worse?