Gary Novosielski

If properly designed, it would not be possible to identify the voter of any given ballot. But it would be possible to do an actual recount of ballots, not simply reprint the readout of totals from a computerized machine.

Where to begin? "I motion" is improper. People move, they do not motion. Apparently, the member meant to say "I move to Adjourn" which would be in order even though the meeting had just begun. And yes the motion would require a second. But the so-called chairman seems to have overlooked a minor point: THE VOTE! A motion to adjourn, just as with almost all other motions, requires not merely a second, but a vote, normally a majority vote, of the assembly. DId the chairman actually declare the meeting adjourned because two random members wanted it, without finding out how many were in favor, and how many opposed to the motion?

Nobody is ever required to vote. The right to abstain applies to everyone, including the chair. Yes, if he abstains from voting, that would, of course, be an abstention. In large bodies, the chair is discouraged from voting (except when the vote is by ballot or when that single vote could change the outcome) in order to maintain the appearance of impartiality. Under small board rules, the chair votes normally. The idea that the chair votes to "break" ties is a common misconception. Even in large bodies, a chair who opposed the pending motion might vote to create a tie and defeat a motion that would otherwise pass, or could abstain when a tie vote occurred, allowing the motion to fail. Ties do not require "breaking"; since a tie is less than a majority, the motion simply fails.

Yeah, he said Please.

Was it the executive board that appointed the members of the committee in the first place? If so, then they have the power to amend their selection by removing one or more of the members they appointed. If the general membership appointed the committee, then they have the power to "un-appoint". If its the president, then it's the president. As a general rule, the power to appoint carries with it the power to remove. (An exception would occur in the case of appointing someone to a position with a fixed term of office, but that seems not to be applicable in this case.) In general, committees do not have the power to vote people off the committee; they need to report such a recommendation to whatever body appointed them.

Rather than taking the time to try to hammer this out during a meeting, I'd suggest establishing a committee to do the reconciliation, appointing some or all of the members of the two reporting committees to this select committee.

Well there are some motions you can make and others you can't. E.g., you can move to amend, postpone, or refer the pending motion, or move the Previous Question (cut off debate on the pending motion), depending on the current parliamentary situation. And you can make a number of incidental motions, but you can't, say, introduce a new main motion. So the answer is It depends. Can you provide an example of what you have in mind, that prompted the question?

No. If the bylaws are silent on the matter, then meetings and voting require the physical presence of members.

We are similarly told that voting machines used in public elections also ensure secrecy and reliability, yet a number of states are (wisely, in my view) insisting on a paper trail for ballots, to ensure that the results are fully auditable.

I suspect the term "its own suspension" arises from an assumption that the best place to put a rule allowing for the suspension of provision B would logically be within provision B. Placing it in, say, provision T would violate no rule in RONR, but would arguably increase the probability that it might be overlooked. Given that a majority of bylaws are not above average, every small increase of clarity helps. Perhaps the General assumed that more people would see the wisdom of the proximity of placement suggested by that language, but if history has taught us anything it is that we never learn anything from history.

When any committee member is not informed or is excluded from notice of a meeting, it is not a SECRET MEETING, it is an improper meeting, i.e., not a meeting at all, and therefore null and void.

Bylaws, in general, cannot be suspended ever. That's where you put things that you do not want to be suspended. Exceptions are: rules that provide for their own suspension or those that are clearly in the nature of rules of order. It is also worth noting that a bylaws requirement that elections of officers be held by ballot cannot be suspended even by a unanimous vote, though it is a rule of order and may apply during a meeting. So there are some specific rules that supersede the general rules.

No that is not what I described. A request for unanimous consent means that any member or members may object, no preference for the original mover. At the discretion of the chair, if a "friendly" amendment is moved, the chair may treat it as a unanimous consent request, and if objection is heard, or, if he believes it may be more controversial and therefore benefit from debate, may treat it as a motion to amend, and ask if there is a second--still no preference for the original mover.

If the rules in RONR apply, you are free to hope! 🤞

No, I don't either. And at least it's better than, "I'm certain I speak for the entire board".

No, I don't think my answer implied that your answer implied otherwise either. 🙂 ...or something. I can envision a case where there was an objection, and during the subsequent debate on the amendment, the mover of the original motion expressed agreement with the amendment. Although the original mover has no more parliamentary clout than anyone else, the culture of the assembly might be such that members would be inclined to give that opinion more weight. I think it would be in order to say, "As the original mover, I support the amendment for the following reason(s)...." Similarly, if the mover opposed the amendment, there's no harm in pointing out in debate that, as the author of the original language, the amendment falls short for <reasons>. Of course, the vote would still be required, but I don't see a problem with taking advantage when it's available. Do you agree?

A member does not speak for the board unless the board has voted on the opinion to be expressed. And if the vote was a bare majority, the member might be speaking for the board, but would not necessarily be speaking for the entire board, unless the vote had been unanimous.

Well, no, but the maker of the original motion still qualifies as "even one member".

The section is quite clear under the heading Removal From Office that: "Except as the bylaws may provide otherwise, any regularly elected officer of a permanent society can be removed from office by the society’s assembly...." <emphasis added> --which is to say a meeting of the society's membership. The board would have no power to remove officers except as enumerated in the bylaws.

I think I ended up with a soulful ballad on a sloop. And it cost me 99¢ more.

I agree. But one of the common scenarios for voting not to accept a resignation is if it is desired to discipline the person. Once a resignation has been accepted, the society has far fewer options in this regard. In a club where dues are required, it is common for the club to refuse to accept the resignation of a member who is in arrears on dues payments. Dues, therefore, continue to accumulate until paid in full. Still, these are reasons for failing to accept a resignation. It does not mean that it would be germane to substitute one motion for the other.

If in fact action has already been taken as a result of the passage of the original motion, then it is not possible to use the motions to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted. Those motions can be used to change or reverse a decision taken previously, but only to the extent that the motion has not yet been fully carried out. So it will depend on the details of the particular case. For example, if the motion was to paint the clubhouse red, and the paint had not yet been purchased, it would be in order at the next meeting to move to amend that motion to change red to green. The motions to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted are covered in Section 35, and "require (a) a two-thirds vote, (b) a majority vote when notice of intent to make the motion, stating the complete substance of the proposed change, has been given at the previous meeting within a quarterly time interval or in the call of the present meeting, or (c) a vote of a majority of the entire membership—any one of which will suffice."

There is no such statement in RONR. In fact, the contrary is true: if a ruling of the chair is appealed, then the outcome of that vote, whether to sustain or to overrule, is the decision of the assembly. If it is not appealed, it is simply the decision of the chair.

This is a confusing, ambiguous, and regionally variant "feature" (read: bug) of American English. The pronouns, with/for and the order of the two things to be substituted one for the other, are not fixed in their meanings. I discovered this on moving from NJ to PA, when my attempts at a restaurant to substitute a bowl of soup for a salad were having the opposite of their intended effect.

No. During a roll-call vote, a member may respond Pass, but that will only postpone his vote until all the other names have been called. If he does not vote by the time the roll call is over, he will have abstained. There's no way to delay until next week.