Gary Novosielski

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.

In which case it would be Roberts's Rules

You bet. And if your bylaws are fairly typical, it's the general membership who adopts bylaws in the first place, and who is authorized to amend them (for example, to fix those conflicting provisions). Boards are not superior bodies, they are subordinate to the general membership, and have only such powers as are granted to them by the membership in the bylaws.

Yes, I'll grant you that. That's a comfortable distance away from the Board having final authority to determine what bylaws amendments the membership is permitted to consider.

It could but it's a bit distasteful. If it's a true majority, they'll have no trouble defeating troublesome amendments. There's no need to deprive others of their rights in order to get their way. Democracy doesn't mean you always get what you want. But you usually have a better chance of getting what you want by thoughtful debate than by parliamentary trickery.

Once again, in a typical organization, the general membership is the body authorized to consider changes to the bylaws. The Board would have no role. Since the organization appointed the committee, it reports to the organization, not the board. If the Board appointed the committee, I would have to ask why, since the bylaws are outside their area of responsibility. Your bylaws may vary.

I am still not able to edit that message, but I could edit the one where I noted that I couldn't edit the other. Hmm. I don't like that sentence.