Gary Novosielski

If there is unanimous consent, the motion is adopted, just as if there were a vote. The minutes should reflect the fact that it was agreed to by unanimous consent. The agreement was binding right then, as soon as the chair made that announcement. But understand this—approving the minutes, including any necessary corrections, is proper of course, but it has no effect on whether the agreement is binding. What makes it binding is that it was duly adopted by unanimous consent.

In the usual case, nominating committees nominate one name per position, and in some cases this is required in the bylaws (check yours). If not, though, it would be up to the nominating committee to decide whether to include more than one name. Nothing in RONR would prohibit the practice. In any case, after the nominating committee presents its report to the assembly, the chair must call for additional nominations from the floor, if any.

You don't seem to be missing anything. If the Previous Question is moved and seconded, it is not debatable. Deciding whether to stop debating by debating about the advisability of further debate would quickly descend into absurdity. The way to register opposition to ordering the Previous Question is to vote against it. But if two thirds vote in the affirmative, which is the required threshold, it's unlikely that an argument to keep debating would have been successful anyway.

What matters is whether or not it was truly an agreement. A unanimous consent request can be adopted without a vote if the chair calls for objections and none are heard. It's a binding agreement and belongs in the minutes. But something that was not, in fact, agreed to, cannot be made valid by a vote on the minutes. The only valid vote on corrections to the minutes are those that cause the minutes to record what actually happened. They can't ratify something that was improperly done. They can only record the improper action that actually occurred. (There is a motion called Ratify that can be used in some cases, but that's à different motion entirely.)

The problem here is that "the way your bylaws are written" is what you must comply with. The fact that you don't like how they are written does not figure into it, unless and until you successfully amend them. So it is not correct that your only choice is to follow the or alternative—in fact, your only choice is to follow your bylaws the way they are written. The way I read the bylaws, they specify a fixed term. I think neither the and nor the or alternative applies here, specifically because the word until does not appear. In best-practice bylaws, terms end after a given time plus additional time until successors are in place. But your bylaws say that terms last for two years. Although they mention successors, they do not say that the fixed terms continue until the successors take over. They say that successors will take over "at that point". What point is that point? The only point mentioned is the two-year point. Saying that the successors take over when they take over is a tautology. Of course they do. But the bylaws say that happens at the two-year point; full stop. What happens if they don't? I see nothing to suggest that the current officers stay in office. Presumably there would be no officers at that point, as is the case with fixed terms. Yes, it could be argued, as @Atul Kapur has done, that your bylaws are equivalent to the and (first) alternative, and while I have a different view, I believe that no matter which of us is correct, you're stuck using the discipline process outlined in Chapter XX of RONR

"In the wrong order them you have." --Yoda

I have known some, and had some.

You have reached some different conclusions from the OP than I did. In the situation as you describe it, the motion is offered as a main motion and then referred to a rules committee. In that case, you would be correct that the original maker's "ownership" of the motion is of historical interest only. However it is still the case that unless the rules committee has expanded powers, it can do nothing more than report a recommendation back to the parent body. It can't, on its own, change the motion that will be brought back before the parent body, or delay it beyond its designated reporting date. But I was working on a different assumption. My answer referred to a situation, which is fairly common, where rule changes, especially special rules of order or bylaws amendments of a similar nature must be submitted directly to a committee charged with reviewing all such proposals before they are brought to the floor. In some societies, these proposals are reviewed and reported to the assembly with recommendations. In other societies the committee has the power to substantially alter, revise, delay, or even kill the proposal before it sees the light of day. But it still boils down to the same answer. Committees have only such power as the rules allow them.

Yeah, that was what the other copies were for.

I think the analogy is pretty thin. Actually making a motion and having it placed before the assembly is very different from having a committee change it or delay it. Many societies do give such powers to a rules committee, and if they do, then the committee can do whatever its rules allow. But @Josh Martin is right that this only occurs if such rules actually exist.

With apologies to Crocodile Dundee, "Dash? - That's not a dash ⸻ that's a dash.

You can't very well claim that it would not work if you have not tried it. The only way a chair can ignore the will of a 42‑ member board is if 21 of those members agree with him. Read the chapters on Point of Order and Appeal, and be ready to put a plan into action at the next meeting. By the way, do your bylaws give the chair the power to cancel meetings? That would be a rare provision. If it does not, then meet anyway.

Why is a committee of the board doing this rather than a committee of the membership? That might have had something to do with the membership rejecting the result.

The format is fair. The idea is poor. Since the membership elects the board, the membership should be the body that removes or replaces members of the board. If I were a general member, I'd certainly vote against a bylaws amendment that robbed the membership of an important power. But since I'm not a member my opinion is of little consequence.

Don't you have a vice president? If so, that's who becomes president, not the past president. And when you say "he" quit, it's not clear whom you mean. Did the past president actually quit? I thought he became president. And yes, the recently current president did quit, and at that time (actually when his resignation was accepted) he became the immediate past president. If your bylaws say he gets an automatic seat on the board, then he gets an automatic seat on the board. You may think that since he resigned he shouldn't get that seat, but apparently the members who voted to adopt those bylaws thought otherwise. Or maybe they didn't think it through. But this is why most of us here advise against this practice, since its risks and rewards can sometimes lean in the wrong direction.

Well, that nomenclature isn't going to quibble over itself, you know.

I'm not sure that's true; I use them all the time. My advice on interpreting a semicolon is that the meaning would not change appreciably if the semicolon were replaced by a period, and the next word capitalized as a new sentence, unless they are truly being used like a comma in order to separate phrases that themselves contain commas.

They would have been well advised to adopt Robert's Rules of Order Revised (ROR), 4th edition, ©1915, as their parliamentary authority

I don't know if zoning boards can form special committees, but that would be the natural way to delay consideration until the prerequisite conditions exist. The committee would be responsible for monitoring the required information sources, and so long as they were considering the question, they'd need not fear the frumious¹ quarterly interval. __________ ¹ of or pertaining to the bandersnatch

Surely it could be engineered to present "a substantially different question."

It's a valid concern, but in that context other factors arise, such as the likelihood that a zoning board has fixed terms and a given fraction of the membership subject to change at interval. In that case, it may not be possible to postpone a question past that point of reorganization. I'm not familiar enough with zoning boards to know whether their unfinished business falls to the ground at those times, or whether there is some other way to put an application 'on ice' for extended periods. It may be best to simply reject an application that is unworkable because it is "before its time", and suggest that it be resubmitted at a later date. (But keep the application fee, of course. ☺️)

The phrase voice without vote is not defined in RONR, and the only reason it appears in your bylaws is that somebody saw it somewhere in someone else's bylaws (where it was similarly ill-defined) and thought it sounded cool. I agree with Mr. Katz when he says:

Lay your hands on one or more copies of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised in Brief ¹ (3rd ed.). It contains advice valuable to those newly involved with deliberative assemblies, and has citations to the more nuanced rules in Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised ² (12th ed.) where more detailed explanation is required. ____________ ¹ Known as RONRIB ² Known as RONR

RONR mercifully does not contain a chapter entitled I Told You So.

I understand your unwillingness to pronounce it dead--but if not dead, then surely moribund. I agree that the intent of the motion may have been to Postpone Definitely but I'm less certain than you are that a chair may simply rule this is what occurred, when the assembly actually voted on a different motion. I understand the reasoning, but I'm uncomfortable with the conclusion. If anything, I believe that a motion to "table for a year" is more nearly equivalent to Postpone Indefinitely than to postpone to the next meeting. As a procedural convenience, assuming the motion's death, while perhaps premature at this stage, seems the easiest way to proceed at this point, since no permanent harm is done, and it can be freely renewed whenever it seems appropriate.