Gary Novosielski

If the rules in RONR apply, the fact that a member abstained on awarding a contract does not affect the member's right to vote on future items related to that same contract. No one can be ordered to abstain.

I'm sure that RONR notes somewhere that the "should not" rule on voting where one has a personal interest does not apply to voting for oneself in an election. I presume that the president does not actually have the sole power to appoint anyone, or there would be no need for a vote at all. And if the board is to vote on who shall have this position, then it may be in the nature of an election, with nominations preceding it. If no one else is nominated, the chair may declare herself elected by acclamation. Is this perhaps under a rule where the president appoints, subject to the ratification by the board?

The requirement that committees be less than a quorum is a side effect of the sunshine laws which often provide that whenever a quorum of members is gathered in any venue, it constitutes a meeting of the Board and is subject to all notice, advertising, agenda, and public attendance requirements, and that any decisions made in such a meeting are held to be official acts of the Board, not merely of the committee.

The online dictionary is right. Try "suspendible".

And the photo renders the title moot. 😀

In parliamentary usage unanimous consent is a term of art that confuses this question. In that context, if a member does not object, the consent is unanimous. But this language may be intended to require a unanimous vote. A unanimous vote is one where there are no dissenting votes. So in my view, the answer to both questions is Yes. But laws often define terms differently than their common meaning, and I haven't read the entire law. Even if I had, I'm not a lawyer, so I'd advise you to consult one.

I should shall correct my sloppy use of the word should. Edited to add: Ooops, no can do. The shot clock on editing has expired for that post.

I think not. As Mr. Martin mentions, a rule regarding amendment of the bylaws protects all the members of the society whether or not they are delegates to this particular assembly. The motion to Suspend the Rules: The "below" remarks explain that among other things a rule regarding the amendment of the bylaws is one that protects absentees, and may not be suspended if there are any. Therefore, in a situation where a subset of the membership can approve changes to the bylaws. the question arises whether this removes the protection of absent general members. Since RONR assumes that the general membership is the body voting on the bylaws, I believe that it does not clearly answer this question. My opinion is that the protection should remain, and that the rule in this instance would not be suspendible in the smaller assembly, unless the rule provided for its own suspension.

That would be my understanding as well.

Uh-oh!

NUL

Oh, it is still allowed. My former congressman used to send out copies of speeches he "made" on various subjects. None of them were actually delivered on the floor. They were simply a cut-and-paste job into the Congressional Record, Tune in to C-SPAN and after any period of discussion, someone will rise and "...ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks." But the Congressional Record is not the minutes of the House proceedings.

I'd be concerned that this may have created a continuing breach, subject to reversal if challenged in court. Although the state may not state clearly what they mean, they often know what they mean. Edited to add; I'm surprised that the counsel didn't advise more caution, especially if substantive monetary actions were contemplated. Are you certain the general counsel works for the president, and not the board? Does the board have a legal advisor?

I'd point out that much of this discussion is being supported by paraphrases rather that quotations of the rules. If the rules say that the board shall consist of "eight members ... who shall be elected", they may elsewhere say that it may also comprise an additional member who shall be, ex officio, a member without a vote. However, I agree that without a vote, the president is more like a guest-ex-officio, or in this case a presiding-officer-ex-officio. I would not expect him to count toward or against a quorum, as that term, to me, implies a given fraction of voting members. Unfortunately, state governments, in writing regulations, routinely fail to consult a parliamentarian--at least one familiar with RONR, as distinguished from whatever authority the legislature uses. Although IANAL, I'm familiar with the regulations in New Jersey, which has multiple examples of parliamentarily questionable language, like the infamous "majority of a quorum" rule, whatever that is intended to mean. The public school board on which I served had nine members elected by the public, who then elected officers from among their own number. Also listed as ex-officio board members, but without a vote, were the Business Administrator/Board Secretary, and the Superintendent of Schools, both of whom are hired under contract by the board. The quorum was five, not six. During the opening roll-call, only the names of elected members were called and a quorum determined thereby. The presence or absence of the Secretary and Superintendent was also noted in the minutes, but did not affect a quorum. During roll-call votes, which were required for all resolutions, those two names were not called, and though the regulation only mentioned their non-right to vote, I have never heard of a case in my board or any other where either of them made or seconded a motion. They were recognized during debate only by general consent, or via a Request for Information. I don't expect this to be persuasive in the OP's case, but I offer it as an example of how it was handled in at least one instance of hazy state regulation.

There's no question that's true. I wonder, however, whether as a practical matter a minority of more than a third would vote to suspend the rules and lower the voting threshold so as to facilitate the passage of an amendment which they oppose. It's certainly in order, but has anyone ever seen it happen?

It should not be necessary to request information about the ruling, because the chair, as part of ruling on a point of order should explain why the point is or is not well taken. The ruling, as well as the reasoning, should go into the minutes. If the ruling and reasoning are not satisfactory, any two members (mover, seconder) may raise an Appeal.

I'm not sure it does exceed the scope, although it may. But since the proposal for which notice was given appears to modify the voting structure (in ways I'm not certain I understand), it may be that the proposed amendment would fall within the scope of the original notice.

@NancyB Didn't know what it meant then; don't know what it means now.

A person elected to fill out the unexpired remainder of a term serves only until that term ends. They do not get a new full term tacked on. Then, when the remainder of the term is complete, they can be reëlected at the regular election time.

And when the minutes are pending (under Reading and Approval of Minutes) the term for "amendments" is actually corrections. When the minutes are read (or have been distributed in draft form and no member demands that they be read) the chair asks "Are there any corrections to the minutes? If no member seeks recognition, the chair says "Hearing none, the minutes stand approved as read." (or "as printed"). If corrections are offered, they are typically agreed to by general consent, but if there is disagreement, the matter is settled by majority vote. When there are no further corrections, the chair announces that the minutes stand approved as corrected. There is no final vote to approve the minutes. The minutes are required to be approved. The only way to object is to offer a correction. When all corrections have been handled (whether agreed to or not) the minutes stand approved.

I believe when a person is elected, appointed, confirmed, or succeeds to an office with a specified term of office in the bylaws, or to an unexpired portion of such a term, that once in office, they cannot be removed except by the same method(s) that would apply to anyone else in such an office. No special distinction is attached to their tenure as a result of the method by which they came to hold the office.

It is correct that all remarks must be directed toward the chair, and references to others should be in the third person, preferably using titles and not names. But the idea that you can't urge other members to join you in opposition to (or support of) a motion is utter nonsense. ".... For these reasons, I oppose this motion, and I strongly urge my colleagues to do the same." No problem whatsoever.

Good to know. I have a hard copy but it's easier to do searches with e-copies. In glancing through, I stumbled upon something interesting. It has, I think, been stated here that the antiquated practice of having the secretary, by unanimous consent, cast a single ballot for an unopposed candidate was one of questionable origin lost in the mists of time. But it's right there at the top of page 379 in the suggestions for drafting bylaws. I had never run across it until just now.

Yes, I missed that as well. I presumed it was when the next term was about to start. Apparently the idea that he was trying to get back in immediately was too ridiculous for me even to contemplate. And that's a high bar, trust me. Yeah, the only vacancy needing filling at that point would be in the VP spot, if the rules in RONR apply.

Ah, okay, I understood it to mean coinciding with the reorganization of committees. If it's during the year, Mr. Martin's response was apropos. If it is a case of wishing not to confirm one of the president's appointees, the simplest way is, when the confirmation motion comes up, simply voting down that motion and, if necessary, first demanding a Division of the motion if all the names are moved at once.