Gary Novosielski

That seems likely, but it was apparently discussed briefly but never adopted. That sounds like it was "agreed upon informally" Furthermore, as relates to exhaustion of the motion, the way I read it that if, say, voice voting is the normal method prescribed by the rules, then a motion ordering it has no effect, and the rule concerning the time of exhaustion is not applicable. The rule says it applies to a method of voting that is ordered and not prescribed by the assembly's rules. So that if it is ordered but is prescribed by the assembly's rules, the exhaustion rule does not apply, and, presumably, the properties of the normal rule do, namely that it can be overridden at will by a motion regarding the method of voting, adopted by majority vote. In other words, the purpose of the language seems to be to prevent the existing default rule from being redundantly moved. If that's not the case, then I wonder why that condition was included in the language.

If I understand you, someone moved to use voice votes (we don't know if it was seconded) but that motion was never actually adopted. Since voice votes are the default, there was no point in making this motion, and it could have been ruled out of order, but apparently was not; it was just dropped without action. Then you went ahead and adopted a number of motions by voice vote. If nobody had an "unspoken acceptance" that voice votes were in order, what method would you ordinarily use? Again, I point out that voice votes are the norm, so there would need to be some rule, either in the bylaws or as a special rule of order, requiring some other type of voting. Is there? RONR says "In practice, the method of taking a vote usually can be agreed upon informally." To me, this sounds like what you did. If that's the case, a motion, or suggestion, to take the next motion by another means can be adopted by a majority vote. Another passage that may be relevant is: "If the method of voting on a motion is ordered by the assembly (and not prescribed by the assembly’s rules), such an order is exhausted (1) when the question on which it was imposed has been finally disposed of, or (2) at the conclusion of the session in which the order has been adopted—whichever occurs first." In other words it normally applies only to one motion. But again, this appears to hing on whether this method is "prescribed by the assembly's rules, so I think we need an answer to that. And it's not perfectly clear what happens if the method is prescribed by the assembly's rules But based on what you've said so far, I don't see any compelling evidence that a subsequent motion to take the next vote by ballot would require anything more than a majority vote. Stay tuned for other opinions.

It is not allowed at all.

It is not uncommon for the chair to assume a motion, and if debate follows, and a vote to approve carries, the failure of the reporting member to say the word "move" does not seem to me to create a continuing breach. I'm not certain what you mean by "reconvened", but if action was taken after adjournment, that would appear to further complicate the matter, not remedy it.

I would add that the rules on accepting or declining an office apply to members who have actually achieved a majority victory on the ballot. In other words, one can accept or decline an election, but not a nomination. No second or acceptance is required in the nomination process. Once an eligible person is named, that person is nominated. Although nominees may seek recognition in order to withdraw their candidacy, either before voting or between ballots, this does not prevent voters from voting for them anyway nor, should they be elected, prevent them from accepting election.

Calling a meeting to order and presiding over the election of a Chair pro-tem does not require making motions or voting.

You don't need to declare which threshold you are using. You vote, and see if any if the thresholds are achieved. Of course if you have time to give previous notice, you'll help yourself by allowing the lower threshold to be used.

The "entire membership" includes all members, present and absent, regardless of how "active" they may be. A pulse is all that's required. But that is only one option. The other two are a majority vote (of those present and voting) if prior notice of your intent to make that motion is given, or a 2/3 vote (of those present and voting) if notice has not been given. Meeting any one of the three thresholds is enough to pass the motion.

Under what rule does the president have the right to cancel the meeting? Do the bylaws give him that power? RONR does not. And why do you insist that the president has any authority to verify anything, which gives him the option not to? The president has no role in this process whatsoever. If you believe the board must be informed that you have withdrawn your resignation, then inform them yourself.

That might well be. You should check your bylaws carefully for an article providing for their own amendment and follow that carefully. I was describing the ordinary case anticipated by RONR. But some organizations do require (in the bylaws) the board to "review" proposed amendments. It's not always clear if that gives them the power to amend or reject them, or merely check them for grammar and logic errors.

Not only is it not necessary to resign, it is not a good idea. It makes much more sense to wait and see how the election turns out. And if the terms of secretary and vice president end (and therefore begin) at the same time, she can even run for both positions. And while she cannot be elected to both positions on a single ballot, she could be elected to both if the votes for each office are held separately. But check your bylaws, many organizations do not permit someone from holding multiple offices..

I have never seen a consent calendar used for a bylaws amendment, and although I don't know of any rule prohibiting it, I would recommend against it. Consent calendars are used to save time when considering routine and often recurring motions which are unlikely to require amendments, raise questions, or engender debate. I think it would be unwise to use such a procedure for something as significant as a bylaws amendment, unless your goal is to stimulate suspicion about what you're trying to push through without close inspection. Normally, bylaws amendments are considered by the general membership at a membership meeting. No approval of the board is typically required, although the board could make recommendations to the membership for amendments it deems beneficial.

Yes, unless there's a rule against it in they bylaws.

That would, indeed be unreasonable. Fortunately, that "one member" is incorrect. You (or anyone) can renew the motion (move it again) at the next meeting (regardless of how or whether you voted). Reconsider is used to bring the motion again before the assembly at the same session. It would no longer be relevant now.

The practice of distributing minutes clearly marked -DRAFT- is something that many organizations do. I'm not sure I'd agree that they should be placed online for all the world to see, whether draft or approved. But that's another question. And of course minutes taken during Executive Session might need to be kept secret for some time.

I can't make sense out of this procedure. The Board selects is own members? What purpose does the membership serve, and who shows up at the AGM, and what do they vote on?

And when the minutes are up for approval, offer corrections to any modified wording to restore it to the correct wording. The "main point" is nowhere near good enough. Precisely correct is the only option.

Wait, what? The decision is not his. If there is no quorum there are no decisions by the board. That doesn't mean the president gets royal powers. It means you need to establish a quorum by filling those vacancies. I'm assuming that you are counting yourself among the 3 remaining members. And it wouldn't be his "decision" anyway. Don't be so eager to offer powers to people who don't have them, or they might try to exercise them. Your position is that you withdrew your resignation before it was accepted, and you have a letter to verify that. Therefore, it is not his decision, it is your decision, and you have already made it.

Oh, It wouldn't be the only place in RONR where the reason for a given rule is explained; that happens in many places. But that's not to be taken as license to ignore the rule simply because you don't, or do, understand the consequences. It's the chair's job to keep that from happening. And if the assembly acts inadvisably, and finds themselves in a pickle, I certainly wish them the best of luck.

Did you or anyone object at the time? If nobody objects to a member reading letters or other papers, then it's presumed everyone consents to the practice. However, there is no reason the minutes would include the contents of the letter. When the minutes are up for approval next meeting, and if the draft minutes include it, you may certainly offer a correction to strike the contents of the letter from the minutes. The minutes are a record of what was done, not what was said, and certainly not what was read. I believe the fact that the letter was anonymous supports the view that it shouldn't have been read in the first place, but that's me; I'm not aware of any specific rule on that in RONR. In any case, that ship has sailed.

RONR prohibits proxies to the greatest extent permissible under the law. Your bylaws are free to set rules for the use of proxies, but I'm concerned by the phrase "we allow them". If that's done under an explicit bylaws provision or regulatory mandate, then fine. If the President sent out these notices on behalf of the board, presumably the board approved the action. Since RONR has no rules allowing proxies, any questions on their use would have to be found in your bylaws. It is up to your organization to interpret the rules in the bylaws.

As has been pointed out, board members are considered officers. Do your bylaws say they aren't? RONR does have rules about conduct that would be injurious to the good name of the organization. But the rules in RONR are superseded by the rules in your bylaws. While you're checking your bylaws, make sure you know the procedures for a removal of an officer from their office, and the possibly different rules for expelling a member completely. There might be different requirements. If your bylaws were silent on either of those, you could use the rules in RONR Chapter XX, but I don't think you will find them to be any less cumbersome.

Well, you'll probably need to research how it happened, since that will undoubtedly figure heavily in what the appropriate remedy will be.

The number of abstentions is not a factor. But the motion can be renewed (moved again) at the next meeting. It would be done under New Business. Since it was fully disposed of at the previous meeting, it was not in any sense Unfinished Business. It would certainly not be done before Reading and Approval of Minutes, which is typically the first item of business.

No, the ship will have sailed on that option by the next meeting. But the motion can simply be renewed (by anyone).