Gary Novosielski

Well, according to Robert's Rules, debate (discussion) occurs on motions. And if a motion is made, there's no way to keep it to discussion only. A vote is always possible.

You should not be taking "notes"; you should be taking minutes (which will have very little in them, but they are still minutes). Those minutes should be approved as soon as possible (which will require a quorum).

When a special (a.k.a. select) committee is discharged from its one and only task, it ceases to exist, so you can disband it that way. A standing committee can be discharged from further consideration of one of the matters committed to it, but the committee continues to exist. Discharging a committee normally requires a 2/3 vote, since it is reversing a prior decision (to charge the committee with that matter). However if a committee fails to report by a date at which it was instructed to report, it would only take a majority vote to discharge it. To disband a standing committee you'll have to find out by what authority it was created, and reverse that decision, which could possibly involve a bylaws amendment.

Well, more of a great-granddad. His name was Henry... somethingorother.

Well, you could have immediately moved to accept the resignation, but you snoozed and therefore lost, which unfortunately does not rhyme in the past tense. If she does it again (during a meeting) be prepared.

The member was full of baloney. Members who were not elected at the last annual meeting might not even have achieved a majority, and perhaps for a very good reason. There is no such rule as he claims there is. Never believe anyone who tells you RONR says so, unless they can show you the page and line where it says so. However, since there is also no rule preventing the board from appointing such a person, and since they actually did, that decision stands. The fact that they did so based on misinformation should be a lesson to them not to be so gullible.

Well, a unanimous vote is any vote where all the votes cast were the same, regardless of any abstentions or absentees But I agree that the unanimity, or lack thereof, should not be specially noted in the minutes, since it makes no parliamentary difference.

I was assigned to do a report on Parliamentary Procedure in sixth grade.

Corrections can be made by any member, whether or not they were present during the meeting whose minutes are being approved, and whether or not they were even members back then.

They have no rights at all, including being there in the first place. All rights granted to them are granted by the assembly, by majority vote for quietly observing, or for addressing the assembly (while no question is pending). Making motions, speaking in debate, and similar activities (reserved by rule to members only) would require a 2/3 vote (suspension of the rules). Raising a point of order is tantamount to making a motion. Voting rights may not be granted to a non-member under any circumstances*, not even by a unanimous vote of the assembly. __________ * Well, any circumstances short of admitting them as a member.

Oooooh, critical point there. ANNUAL meeting? No. Things carry over as long as the next meeting date does not exceed a quarterly interval which, by somewhat less-than-obvious definition can sometimes be nearly four months long, but that's it. If, for some reason, you want some question brought up at the next annual meeting you could refer it to a committee with instructions to report then.

I agree with that. Absent any special rules, I would think that a life member could be expelled from membership using the same disciplinary criteria as ordinary members, who are afforded certain due process rights under RONR, if not under the bylaws. Typically, you can't just throw one out on an ordinary main motion.

Well, more to the point, is there anything in the bylaws about removing that status? The bylaws must say something about that status, or it would not exist. If they provide conditions for life membership, and those conditions continue to exist (inlcuding, presumably "life"), then I don't think they would need language protecting it. I'm pretty sure most people would think that bestowing life membership status means that a person would maintain that status for life, unless the bylaws said otherwise.

No, that's not the key, since anyone can be absent or abstain on any vote. The key is realizing that a tie vote, since it is less than a majority, defeats the motion just as soundly as if everyone voted No. It does not mean there is no resolution. It means that the motion is defeated. That is a definite resolution of the question, with an answer of No.

How did this person become a life member?

And even if it were not included in the minutes, there's nothing to prevent Mr. X from agreeing to it anyway.

According to RONR, an agenda isn't really required. And if you are given an agenda but don't formally adopt it, it has no binding effect either. Just follow the regular order of business. Any votes taken are valid as long as the meeting was properly called and a quorum is present.

If the members of the board of selectmen are invited guests at your committee meeting, then the chair of the committee would, as always, chair the committee meeting.

Well, I suppose a rule that debate cannot (normally) be reopened could be considered in the nature of a suspendable rule of order. But whether it requires unanimous consent, or a 2/3 vote, or is in order at all, even with a unanimous vote is difficult to determine, since such a motion is not among those listed in the Work. In any case, since the motion to reopen nominations is clearly available, and by a mere majority vote at that, it would seem to be the preferred path to reach a parliamentary situation where debate is in order. While I still question whether debate could commence in the absence of any additional nominations, I would expect that once debate begins, there is no reason to limit it to discussion of the new nominees, since comparisons to earlier nominees would certainly be germane.

I don't think I was clear, then. If nominations are reopened, which would require only a majority vote, debate on the nominees would certainly be in order.

That's not how I interpreted what Dan said. And as for me, I believe that if no member wishes to offer an additional nomination, then there is nothing more to debate. I think the best course of action when a ballot is inconclusive is simply to have another ballot. Debate at that point is unlikely to be useful. Voters in subsequent rounds are far more likely to be swayed by knowing the results of the ballot before than they are by listening (again) to the opinions of other voters. The latter can only persuade us how the speakers wish we would vote, which we likely already know.. The results of the last ballot tell us how the entire assembly of people actually did vote. And the results of the second ballot, even if still inconclusive, is likely to be more informative than the first. Only by offering additional nominations does the question before the voters actually change. So I favor the strictest interpretation consistent with RONR, that the reopening of debate (but not nominations) ought to require unanimous consent. I fear the wrath when I say "ought to", because one's role here is not to suggest what RONR ought to say, but to discern what it does say. In this case, it doesn't quite say.

So, if they bylaws do not say that the non-voting member cannot vote, the non-voting member can vote?

No members? Must be pretty quiet, except for the crickets.

Your bylaws probably could have broken up that little monopoly. If they don't establish an "executive committee" then no such committee exists. And even when they do, their power is usually limited. Of course if there are three on one side of an issue and only two on the other, the three are going to be able to do pretty much as they please, but not violate the bylaws. It sounds like your best defense would be to (quick like a rabbit) gain a working knowledge of RONR and practice repeating the phrase "Please show me the rule that grants you that authority." Presidents can't break a tie if they've already voted once, by the way. One person--one vote. Illegal? We don't do legal here--not even those among us (not me) who are lawyers

Well, there could still be a problem if they continue to have tie votes, but if the method of selection is an election (and I don't see why it shouldn't be) then things might go easier. For example, if only one candidate is nominated, that candidate could be elected by acclamation. If two or more are nominated, or if there are write-in votes, then the standard advice is appropriate: Keep voting until someone gets a majority, or people get tired of the process and change sides, or someone from one contingent or the other has to go to the loo.