Gary Novosielski

I suppose it depends on whether you consider a motion to reinstate the member as tantamount to rescinding the suspension.

The fact that this is not an uncommon mistake may provide some comfort, cold though that comfort may be.

That seems to be confirmed by the fact that setting a time to adjourn earlier than one already set requires only a majority vote, implying that moving the time later would require more than a majority vote.

It does not. The fact that general membership members are invited to address the board, under a bylaws requirement that an item for hearing from non-members be included in the agenda, only allows them to speak their piece during that item. Per the rules of RONR, only board members may make motions during board meetings. But this rule is in the nature of a rule of order and can therefore be suspended by a two-thirds vote, assuming someone can come up with a reason why it would be necessary.

There you go thinkin' again. That never ends well. 😇

The standard order of business sets no time to adjourn, so no rule is being suspended by setting one. Besides RONR specifically states that this motion requires a majority vote, which would supersede any more general rule.

When an agenda is adopted it is done during a meeting already in progress.

In this context, members would refer to members of the Board. General members of the organization are considered non-members at a board meeting, and no, they can't make motions, if the rules in RONR apply.

The results of the vote could certainly be of interest, but I wouldn't give a plugged nickel to know that the mover was "Keith" or whoever.

Agreeing with Mr. Martin, Standard Descriptive Characteristic 8 is referring to a motion to Reconsider (§37) being made to the motion to Rescind, and that would not be in order at this point anyway. Rescinding a motion and Reconsidering a motion are two completely different concepts.

I am not clear why the board would be voting on a new board. Is your board not elected by your membership? In any case, a meeting to elect new board members requires previous notice. I'm not certain I understand how this applies to your organization, or who "they" are, or what "the same day as meeting" means, since presumably all business is conducted in a meeting.

I agree with @Richard Brown that the phrase: two-thirds vote of the Membership should be interpreted as a normal two-thirds vote conducted among the Membership, and does not mean the same as: a vote of two thirds of the entire Membership. And in this case, it is even clearer than that, since a careful reading of the language below indicates that it requires two-thirds of the Regular Members who are either present and voting, or not present yet voting--but clearly two-thirds of those voting--in other words, at least twice as many Yes votes as No votes, assuming a quorum is satisfied. Edited to add: I also strongly agree with the suggestion to strike Article X, Section C, and so simply default to the rules in RONR, in order to avoid unintended consequences.

A hundred fifty years from now, who is going to care who moved any given motion?

I don't think there is any prohibition against issuing a call of a meeting even if one is not strictly required. In fact, if a member is attempting to fulfill a previous notice requirement, I think that would be an excellent reason to send a call, even if it were not a routine practice. The secretary of a board on which I served used to send a comprehensive packet to every member and in it include a formal call, even though a complete schedule of meetings for the year was adopted in January. There were times when it was useful, but mostly was a formality that gave rise to little benefit and less cost. His successor in the office did not follow his example, and without any fanfare omitted a formal call from the packet. I don't think anyone else even noticed.

Not in those terms. There is some guidance that a member should not vote on a matter in which he has a personal or pecuniary interest not in common with other members. But there is nothing about who holds what board memberships. It is assumed that those doing the appointing will consider all the relevant facts.

Where was the Chair when all this was going on?

There is no specific rule on this, but I can see how the power to schedule meetings can be abused and create a situation that could be termed flagrantly unfair. Does the board have regular meetings, or are they all "called" (i.e., special) meetings? Do the bylaws have any rules regarding when meetings may be called? It's likely that the board is acting within the rules, but it's worth doing some research in the bylaws and other rules to make sure they are. But unless the bylaws grant exclusive powers to the board, it is subordinate to the general membership. So, if a majority of the membership agrees with you, and if none of your customized rules interferes, they could, at a membership meeting, adopt a motion instructing the board to hold its meetings outside of work hours, and the board would be obliged to comply. It could get a bit complex, rule-wise, but I think it could be done if there is enough support among the general membership.

That would be unusual, and it would be difficult for me to call it appropriate. But I'm not a member.

Not in RONR, no. RONR provides that classes of member other than simply "member" would have to be provided for in your bylaws, along with rules on how to handle situations such as you describe. Good luck. Check in if you need feedback on your draft language.

And others are arguing that the Earth is flat. Both groups are misinformed. In the first place, non-approval of minutes is not even an option. When minutes are being considered, if there are no corrections, or once all corrections have been considered, the minutes stand approved. The only way to object to the draft minutes is to offer a correction. And if the correction is not agreed to, then the language of the draft minutes stands. If the rules in RONR apply, the newly elected officers take office as soon as the results of the election are announced, which typically is before the minutes of that meeting are even written up, let alone approved.

RONR already authorizes such a method, which is to include the notice in the call of the meeting to which the notice pertains. RONR already recognizes email as being "written" communication, for rules requiring notice "in writing", to any members who have consented to that method of delivery.

There's nothing specific in RONR. Your organization is free to adopt your own rules on the subject.

Well, the purpose of the forum is to provide information on Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised 12th edition, so that's where the discussion tends to center itself. I think you should be encouraged to direct anyone interested in parliamentary procedure to this forum, but I would not expect anyone here to recommend another alternative to RONR as being superior, even those who have a fertile imagination with respect to what the special needs of some hypothetical society might be. Considering that any society using RONR is free to adopt its own Special Rules of Order to supplement and even supersede those in RONR that they find problematic, it's hard to imagine an alternative that is more flexible, and certainly none that has more than a century of experience distilled into its rules. Speaking for myself, I have had the opportunity to experience a few of the methods touted as alternatives to RONR, and have come away with nothing but a greater admiration for RONR. I now have a rule that I will not waste my time in a group that has rejected RONR. But I'm always interested in what "new" ideas are being dreamed up--interested, but skeptical.

A quick check of a couple of editions, old and new, turns up no uses of the term in that context in RONR, ROR, RO, or PL.

If you do decide to use them, you should require that either everyone votes absentee or nobody does. Mixing in-person and absentee votes creates just the sort of problem you have anticipated. Here's some advice from RONR: 44:11 A plurality vote is the largest number of votes to be given any candidate or proposition when three or more choices are possible; the candidate or proposition receiving the largest number of votes has a plurality. A plurality that is not a majority never chooses a proposition or elects anyone to office except by virtue of a special rule previously adopted. If such a rule is to apply to the election of officers, it must be prescribed in the bylaws. A rule that a plurality shall elect is unlikely to be in the best interests of the average organization. In an international or national society where the election is conducted by mail ballot, a plurality is sometimes allowed to elect officers, with a view to avoiding the delay and extra expense that would result from additional balloting under these conditions. A better method in such cases is for the bylaws to prescribe some form of preferential voting (see 45:62–69). There are several types of preferential voting known, but none of them is perfect--in fact, it may have been proven to be mathematically impossible--so each will have its own pros and cons. One of them, described in 45:63, called Single Transferable Voting, or Instant Run-off Voting, proceeds using voters' ranked preferences to simulate multiple ballots, with the least popular choice being eliminated at each round until someone gets a majority. It's more complicated to count, but I am told software exists to help. Another type, called Borda Count, works by assigning points based on the ranking assigned by the voters, so that being listed as a first choice gains more points than being listed as a second choice. Most points wins. There is also Condorcet voting, which simulates pairwise head-to-head contests between all possible pairings, and seeks to find someone who would win in a one-to-one election with each of the other candidates. So if you go the preferential route, you have some research ahead of you, but it may be less of a burden than trying to run multiple ballots by mail. And any of those methods, in my view, would be preferable to plurality voting.