Gary Novosielski

Oh, did I say front desk? I might have meant nurses' station.

It does not matter what the revision says about vote thresholds until AFTER it is adopted. Until then, the rules in the old bylaws about their own amendment is what determines the process for adopting the revision. If they say nothing, then the default rules in RONR require a two-thirds vote. An newly forming organization has no bylaws and requires only a majority vote to adopt its initial bylaws. After that, it would normally require a two-thirds vote to amend them (or revise them completely).

The secretary could provide a certified copy of the resolution as adopted, and signing it with the notation: This is to certify that the above resolution was adopted on <date> at a <regular / properly called> meeting of the <Legally Named Spelunking Club> at which a quorum was present. /s/ Nora Benét Secretary I've seen it work.

Unless the member who abstained actually packed up and left the room, a quorum was not lost.

No, it's not. Since those two illegal votes could not possibly have affected the outcome, no continuing breach exists, and a point of order would no longer be timely.

Even if they did pass some resolution, it would not be in order in the first place if the rules in RONR apply. What do the bylaws say about the power of the board? If there's nothing in there about amending or suspending provisions of the bylaws, then just proceed as if they did not have any such powers, because you have no reason to believe they do. Brush up on the process for Point of Order and Appeal.

If you ask at the front desk, they can tell you, dearie.

And so it shall. I must admit that I had forgotten that I said it, and was disinclined to look it up to see who had. Fortunately, I find that in this instance I am largely in agreement with myself, which was far from a sure thing.

I can't provide a cite in RONR, but it's something of a recurring theme in Parliamentary Law. Remedies that are possible are given preference over remedies that are impossible, and among those possible, fair remedies are generally preferred over unfair ones.

But I think a well-launched epithet or two would not be amiss, at the door.

I don't know how that would happen. If the maker did not move the motions together, there's no motion to Bundle Someone Else's Motions. If this member makes a motion to adopt several motions together then he's the maker. Who then is this other "maker" of whom you speak?

Yes, I am saying that one motion is sufficient. There is no vote required to allow it, since if the copies have been properly distributed, the motion is in order. If anyone objects, the chair should rule their point not well taken, presuming the copies actually were distributed. If there's a question of fact in dispute on that point, that would be the only grounds to object, so the mover should be prepared to show that it was done.

I have heard some light, tasteful, hissing on occasion, being careful not to rise to the level of impertinence. And kvetching is permissible as long as there is a motion to rescind, amend, or appeal on the horizon. Only pointless kvetching is prohibited (presuming that's not a redundancy).

After a hundred years or so, the original reason may be lost to history. The point is that by using the motion to Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate, you can set the length of speeches or their number to any values you deem appropriate to your situation. Or you can adopt a Special Rule of Order to that effect. A bylaws amendment is not required, but could be used if desired.

I don't think it's that complicated. Presume the 1000 copies have been distributed. The process would go like this: WS: Mr. President. Chair: Mr. Stuff? WS: The requisite 1000 copies of the motion having been distributed, I move the following amendment to the bylaws: In Article X, Section 3, strike the word adventitious and replace it with the word extrinsic. SE: Second! Chair: It has been moved and seconded that...

From the description given, whatever happened, the final vote on the main motion was taken, and apparently nobody in the assembly had a problem with it at the time, so at this point it's crying over spilled milk. Rules do not enforce themselves. If you notice a rule being broken, it's very often a matter of speak now, or forever hold your peace. There are a handful of situations where the breach of the rules is a continuing matter, and a point of order can be raised as long as the breach continues, but in a case like this, nobody objected to their rights to debate being cut off, and objection at this point is no longer timely.

Since re-sending a letter is quite the opposite of rescinding it, this is a confusing situation.

It seems clear to me that the antecedent of "it" is "the proposed amendment" so it is the amendment that must receive a two-thirds vote. But presumably the only requirement for it being considered in order is the furnishing of the one kilocopy of the amendment. It clearly cannot receive a two-thirds vote before it has been moved.

If the Previous Question is moved, and not seconded, but a vote is taken anyway, then it's too late to raise a point of order about the lack of a second, regardless of the outcome of the vote.

I did have a strong sense of déjà vu on reading this one. Perhaps GuestArthur541 is hoping for a different answer.

No.

You might think it was the motion to Reconsider, but that can't be used on motions that were adopted at a former session. The motion you're looking for is either Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted, depending on whether you want to repeal the motion completely, or just modify its language. These motions are covered in RONR (12th ed.) §35. Either motion requires a second; is debatable, and can go into the merits of the original motion; is amendable; and for passage requires either: (if previous notice was given) a majority vote; or (if previous notice was not given): a two-thirds vote; or a vote of a majority of the entire membership of the body that is meeting.

Yes, I'm quite sure you're right. I was just explaining why we had been insisting on an exact quote of the language. In this instance there are such removal provisions in the bylaws (though one might wish they had more clarity than they do).

This is also often called a "Reorganization Meeting" of the Board.

The proper thing to have done, after the laughter had died down, would be to hold the election anyway. (see Point of Order and Appeal)