Gary Novosielski

If I understand correctly, the AGM elected a board, and the board was supposed to meet immediately afterwards (organizational meeting) to elect officers from among its own number, but failed to do so. It seems to me they should do so as soon as practicable.

Unless the bylaws expressly give the board the power to suspend provisions in the bylaws, they can't. When a board is given the authority to act on behalf of the organization (typically between meetings of the general assembly of organization) it is assumed that those decisions will not conflict with the bylaws. The bylaws can only be changed by the authorized body and according to the prescribed procedure set out in the bylaws for their own amendment.

Rather than moving to Adjourn, a motion at the final meeting of the committee to Rise and Report is certainly appropriate. If the committee keeps minutes (not typically the case) the motion would be recorded there.

It should have been obvious that procedures were not being followed at the meeting, as soon as the president failed to follow them. If, as it appears, nobody raised a Point of Order at the time, there's no evident basis in the rules in RONR for overturning the election at this point, I concur with Mr. H. Your bylaws on nominations appear, to this non-member at least, to contain unnecessary layers of complexity. Only your organization can decide whether your custom rules actually solve problems that aren't adequately addressed by the default rules in RONR itself, but I think it's a question worth asking.

It is sufficient to list the main motion (as amended, if amended) and the outcome. The mover's name should be recorded, but not the seconder. What is this motion to "suspend debate" of which you speak, and how does it differ from a motion for the previous question?

What ought to happen is that someone raises a point of order that the chair failed to announce the result of the previous vote.

But if a majority voted No on suspending the rules, then we have not (somehow) decided to vote on (and pass) all the pending motions at once, and so everything that was pending remains pending.

According to my dictionary, a duty may be a moral (i.e., ethical) obligation, or a legal (e.g., parliamentary) requirement. If one does not think it is the right thing to do, but it is required by the rules, it is a duty. But if it is not required by the rules, yet one believes that it is one's ethical responsibility, it is also a duty.

Strictly speaking, the Nominating Committee does not vote for a person to be in a position; it votes on a person to be nominated, which often equates to be on the ballot. Since the committee does not typically report to the board (but rather to the general membership), the board has no authority (or opportunity) to change the report of the NomCom. However, after the report is made to the membership (typically at the annual meeting), the chair must call for additional nominations from the floor, which any member present (even those who are also board members) may offer. But note that these are additional nominations, and do not remove or replace anyone already nominated.

I agree that such motions, if offered as a block, must be divided on the demand of a single member. They may be "related" in subject matter, but whether Alice Brown, or Charles Dumont should be hired as an administrator are clearly two separate and independent questions.

In my view, all and not all have different meanings.

Well, I think voting by e-mail would involve (and violate) one.

The phrase "2/3 majority" is not to be found in RONR. A motion may require a majority vote, or a 2/3 vote, but not both.

In your original post, you called it a motion to Postpone Indefinitely, which essentially kills the motion if it passes, but we're not clear that it did pass. Now you're calling it a motion to Postpone until the next AGM (i.e., to a definite time) . Such a motion cannot be used to postpone longer than a quarterly time interval, so this would not be in order. Earlier you suggested that the intent of the motion was to refer the matter to the board, which would be a motion to Commit/Refer. Without knowing what motion was actually made, and how it was disposed of, it's difficult to advise you on whether it was properly handled and, if not, whether it is too late to do anything about it.

It may be time for them to start thinking that way, or else put up with whatever motions the gang of three want to pass in their absence. Or raise the quorum amount to a representative number.

During debate on a motion, members can discuss, raise questions and concerns, modify the motion to improve it, refer it to a committee, postpone it, and ultimately vote to approve or reject it. So, no, the belief is not true that limiting discussion to pending motions prevents members from doing those things.

The AGM is a meeting of members, not of the board. Was the motion to postpone approved by a vote of the membership? If so, then I guess most people agreed. Did you bring up the points you raised during debate? It is not clear to me whether the motion was actually a motion to refer the matter to the board; that would depend on the exact wording. If so, then the board has a duty to consider it and report to the membership. The board, in general, should be listening to the membership, not to us. We are not members.

Yes, but in the case of an Appeal, the president's vote is likely to be predictable.

The quote does not appear to be from Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR), as the words unbeatable and unnameable appear nowhere in that work. The rule about a ballot vote applies upon the demand of a single member, but not automatically. When the chair assumes a motion, that replaces the actions of moving and seconding the motion, which can be directly placed before the assembly by the chair simply by stating the motion. It is the assembly and not the chair that then decides the fate of the motion.

Well, is RONR listed as your parliamentary authority? If so, then yes, the chair can call for nominations, or if he fails to do so, any member may move to re-open nominations, which requires majority approval.

Your bylaws probably contain a definition of what constitutes sufficient prior notice of a meeting. If the date of the annual meeting is specified in the bylaws, it may be that notice is not required at all, In general, if a particular number of days is not specified, RONR states that when prior notice is required it must be a "reasonable" time in advance. Yes, that's open to interpretation, and the membership has the power to interpret it.

The rules in RONR provide that after the nominating committee presents its report, the chair must then call for nominations from the floor. You will need to determine if your bylaws have rules that are inconsistent with that, which would take precedence.

No. And once the motion has been placed before the assembly by the chair, the mover may not unilaterally withdraw it, but must move for permission to withdraw it (majority vote or unanimous consent).

In that case, the variance has passed. It would have been possible to raise a point of order regarding the improper handling of the motion to table/postpone, or whatever it was, at the time, but it's too late now.

According to RONR, the tellers of the election are normally appointed by the chair. Since you appear to have a customized rule, you'll need to follow that.