Gary Novosielski

Check the bylaws. Some organizations have a provision in the bylaws that the president is an ex-officio member of all committees (usually excepting the nominating committee). If this is the case, then the president has full committee membership, except that he is not counted in establishing or fulfilling the quorum requirement. He may choose to attend or not attend as seems advisable, but not as the chair of the committee, just as a somewhat optional member. If there is no such provision in the bylaws, the president is not a member of a committee unless appointed to it, and has no special right to attend.

Well, if it's not, and there's only one name, and that person can't get a majority on a voice vote, then somebody somehow is going to need to come up with another name or names to try. If there is a political division that looks like it will take time to work out, one way to help get the situation under control would be for someone to move for a ballot election.

Well, they shouldn't, but without a vote, nothing changes. The alternative is scornful looks, which are not as effective.

No, "that nominee" is not removed from consideration, but your question leaves me confused. If there is just one nominee, how can there be a tie? If you are considering one nominee at a time, with Yes or No votes for each, that is not the proper way. All the nominees are considered at once, and voters vote for their preferred choice. The only way to vote "No" on a nominee is to vote for someone else. If nobody receives a majority of the ballots cast, you vote a second time, a third time, or as many times as necessary. No one is eliminated unless they voluntarily withdraw. Eventually someone always gets a majority. New nominees can also be proposed between rounds of balloting.

In general, a motion that does not have some sort of termination clause built in, is in effect until it is rescinded, amended, or in the probably more common case, fully carried out. In your example, where $20,000 was allocated to be spent, once all the money had been spent the motion would be fully carried out, and would no longer be in effect. It is the practice in some organizations that previous actions that are intended to have continuing effect for a longer period than, say, buying a new trash can, are compiled in a binder called Standing Rules, Policies, or Special Rules of Order, depending on the type of motion that created them. It's handy to have a ready reference. But it's important to note that it's the language of the original motion, as recorded in the minutes, that is the actual rule. The policy manual is just a (hopefully accurate) copy of that original.

Well, yes, the rules do apply just as with committees, but those rules say that non-members (of the committee) have no right to attend at all, at least if we're talking about the rules in RONR. If your bylaws or special rules of order allow attendance of non-members, that would be a different story. However, the right to attend a meeting of a given body does not imply a right to speak at that meeting. The body may allow a non-member to speak by majority vote, to speak in debate by a two-thirds vote (because it requires suspending a rule), but it cannot allow a non-member to vote under any circumstances.

Well, the original question was about automatic referral of a class of business. If your purpose is to assert that a society may adopt a special rule of order that seems to cross the boundary into the land of the absurd, experience hath shewn that this was never seriously in doubt.

No. Once a resignation has been duly accepted, it cannot then be withdrawn: FAQ # 18 A resignation is a Request to Be Excused from a Duty. It may be withdrawn in the same manner as any motion may be withdrawn—that is to say, before the proposed resignation has been placed before the assembly by the chair stating the question on its acceptance, it may be withdrawn without the consent of the assembly, but it may not be withdrawn without permission of the assembly once it has been placed before the assembly for its approval. [RONR (12th ed.) 32:1–8, 33:12–18.] As you can see, it becomes impossible to withdraw, unilaterally, a resignation even before it is accepted, once the chair has stated the question on accepting it. At that point, one could debate against accepting it, or argue in favor of granting leave to withdraw, but it is out of the requestor's hands. And once the vote is taken, that action is considered complete, so the decision, once made, cannot be rescinded. Once accepted, the only way to resume that office would be to run for election in the normal fashion (or be appointed to fill a vacancy).

And would that not be a motion "of any sort"?

If no motions of any sort were made, how could there have been a vote?

Well, 47:36 is quite clear that members may examine reports and record books, including executive sessions. If the rule meant to say record books except those for periods when they were not members, it would have to say so. Since it does not, it means any records. There is no other reasonable interpretation.

Yes, it does give the board unconscionable power over the membership, contrary to all that is good, right and true. Unfortunately if it was duly added to the bylaws, it is perfectly valid.

Then the former secretary is President, and there is a vacancy in the office of Secretary (and the office of Vice President). But you still seem to have yourself painted into a corner. What are the procedures for calling a meeting of the Membership, as opposed to the Board?

That's fine if members want a secret ballot, but even then, the two choices should be Yes and No. Those who want to abstain can simply not turn in a ballot, or if they want to keep their abstention secret, can cast a blank ballot. Blank ballots are ignored during counting.

I don't think it would be prohibited, but it is nothing more than permitting the Committee of the Whole, which is already permitted. So the language would be included for no purpose. In either case, this committee would not be able to transact business except to decide what recommendation to report the the assembly. Just as with any instance of Committee of the Whole, it has no power to act independently.

Understood. When proposing a motion to do something, it is proper to phrase it in such a way that there is a clear Yes/No choice. Having three choices, one of which is labeled "Other" but without defining it deprives the voter of the opportunity to reject the motion entirely. Consider this ballot: Choose one: Paint the clubhouse red. Paint the clubhouse blue. Paint the clubhouse some other color (unspecified). What do I do if I do not want the clubhouse to be painted at all? For future reference, a well-formed motion would be something like: To join the church conference. Then voters who favored joining would vote Yes, and those who oppose it would vote No. If less than a majority voted Yes, the church would remain independent. In the case you describe in your question, since choosing the third "other" option essentially did not express a preference, it could be argued that it should be called an abstention, and not counted as a vote. In that event, the option to remain independent would be the "winning" choice. But even if we count the two "Other" votes as a vote and declare that no choice reached a majority, what is the result? Well, then nothing would be done, effectively meaning that the church would not join the conference, so the result is exactly the same. Note that it is improper to include a choice on the ballot which simply describes the status quo, i.e., not doing anything. This is achieved by voting No. In situations like the clubhouse vote, during debate on a motion to paint the clubhouse some color, the amendment process would be used to first decide on the color, and once that's decided, vote on the motion to paint the clubhouse that color--Yes, or No. If the motion fails, the clubhouse is not painted, but a future motion could explore other options.

At the risk of being labeled a pedant, I would phrase this differently: Members can abstain, in which event they have not voted, so there is nothing to count.

If a RONR rule says a trial is required to remove someone, and a bylaws rule says that a majority vote is sufficient to remove someone, that is a rule that clearly provides otherwise. Either that, or the word otherwise does not mean what we thought it meant.

That's what it sounded like to me. The OP seemed to be looking for a way to hold the next meeting without having the unreached items on the previous agenda turn up under Unfinished Business and General Orders.

The key captcha can be easily avoided by becomming a "member". Your address will not be used for any spam purpose, and it will be much easier to use the forum. I apologize for my colleagues short responses, and I encourage you to answer my question regarding how the previous meeting ended.

You're repeating yourself.

That depends. What happened when the quorum was lost?

You seem to have glossed over the fact that this is an Executive Board and therefore more likely than not would be subject to the Small Board Rules [49:21]. The rule is there for a reason, and participation by the chair should not, in my view, be discouraged where appropriate.

No. The result must be such that at least two thirds have voted in the affirmative. So the only question is whether it is, or is not. In this case it is not. The rule is easily checked by taking the number of Yes and No votes, do no division, no mutiplication, no rounding (especially incompetent rounding), doubling the No votes, and seeing whether the Yes votes reach or exceed that number. Try that on your test data, and you will find that the motion was rejected. Incidentally the use of the phrase two-thirds majority is deprecated. A majority vote and a two-thirds vote have very different meanings.

Generally speaking, No.