Kim Goldsworthy

Viz., "There are 15 in the affirmative, and 10 in the negative. There are two thirds in the affirmative, and the motion is adopted." Q. How does the extra wording change the question asked? change the answer given?

There is nothing wrong with interim positions. Look at it this way. When an officer dies, the organization does not lose the ability to function. Thus, if a secretary dies, the organization does not lose the ability to create minutes (or, to stuff envelopes, or to type correspondence, etc.) Thus, if a sergeant-at-arms dies, the organization does not lose the ability to station guards at the door. Thus, if a treasurer dies, the organization does not lose the ability to deposit checks and to pay monthly bills. Thus, if the president dies, the organization does not lose the ability to preside over meetings (nor lose the ability to rule on points of order, etc.). *** Until the vacancy of the dead officer is filled with a qualified person, then someone must be appointed to take on the duties of the dead officer, but with no perqs of office. -- Because the "pinch-hitter" or "temporary worker bee" is (a.) NOT IN OFFICE, and (b.) NOT SITTING ON THE BOARD, and (c.) IS NOT COMPLETING ANY TERM-OF-OFFICE. The board (or the party responsible) must still, sooner or later, fill the vacancy with a person who is qualified to hold that office. But until that happens, the organization may function. It just has to delegate. No big deal.

Good question. Let me make an analogy. *** Assume an original main motion, "Resolved, To [paint red] the XYZ association". -- Assume it is adopted in the year 1999. Once fully executed, once the paint dries, and once time passes, and you then wish to make a serious change in 2017, you don't move "To Rescind the 1999 resolution." What do you do? You move a new main motion, "To [verb] the XYZ association." (fill in the verb: "paint green"? "paint blue"? "strip and varnish"?)

The chair's announcement stands. "After the meeting" is too late to raise the Point of Order.

Read your bylaws. It could well be that 100% of the control of the organization lies with the board, and the general membership is left with (typically) two areas of authority, (a.) amending the bylaws; (b.) electing its board. And nothing else. You'll find that homeowners associations are (typically) crippled in membership rights, likewise. -- The Board is the local god, and the general membership are peons, left with bread crumbs. So, READ YOUR BYLAWS, and look for the split of powers.

If you are asking if there is a default (Robertian) "sunset law", then the answer is "no". *** E.g., if a board sets the dues for the organization for $N, then the dues are set forever at $N, until the board (or the appropriate body responsible for the setting of dues) either RESCINDS or AMENDS that resolution. -- Or amends the bylaws to change the method itself of "setting dues". E.g., if a board endorses Mr. X for Position P, then that support is forever, or until there is • no more Mr. X, or • no more Position P, or • no more relationship between Mr. X and Position P.

I am not too crazy about "10 tricks to appear smart in meetings". [...] 8. Make Fun Of Yourself 9. Step Out For A Very Important Phone Call. [...] *** The N.A.P. and A.I.P. already publish similar cheat sheets. Why would you lean on a cheat sheet which fails to conform to the parliamentary authority (assuming Robert's Rules of Order)? *** Your cheat sheet is missing "Discharge a Committee".

One possibility: The member who raises a point of order may not understand (or appreciate) "unanimous consent". The member may prefer a formal motion, and a formal vote. And a formal motion is still in order. -- No one is forced to submit to unanimous consent.

In Robert's Rules of Order, see "unanimous consent". -- The Vice President ought to announce that control is returning to the regular presiding officer. -- No muss, no fuss. *** If a point of order is raised (highly unlikely!), then you will have to resort to some formality.

No date is required per Robert's Rules of Order. *** For the sake of researching the proper minutes responsible for one's last set of amendment(s), use the date of the meeting. -- This usually implies the "AGM" (annual general meeting) date. If there is a question raised about the wording of one's constitution & bylaws, your first line of defense is: "Double check the wording of the minutes' text against the text of the constitution & bylaws" -- thus seeking an error in transcription. It happens quote often, when there are many amendments -- e.g., a comma gets lost in the transfer of data, and the one pair of eyeballs responsible just overlooked it.

Q. Have you read "To Reconsider"? Q. Have you read "To Suspend the Rules"? Q. Have you read "To Amend Something Previously Adopted"? There are at least two tools, and maybe three tools, which could be available at any given time, to re-entertain that which has been settled. Add to that, certain incidental motions, which sometimes can be renewed by sheer passage of time (and passage of business).

Homeowners Associations (HOAs) are strange creatures. They often have (in the 50 states) a comprehensive set of laws which govern the relationship between the board vs. the general membership. So I fear any answer you get based on Robert's Rules of Order may not apply, because of the inapplicability of one's parliamentary authority where the state has stepped in and created a web of laws. *** What you describe above is harmless and normal, if Robert's Rules applies. But, from what I know of HOAs in general, it is the board which is the party who controls most everything, leaving the general membership with (typically) only two duties: (a.) amend the bylaws; (b.) elect its board. And nothing else. *** And another confounding factor: BYLAWS. It could well be that your bylaws do have wording which may influence your scenario. And no one "here" (on this Q-and-A website) has read your bylaws. So there you are -- you've got state laws to contend with, plus bylaws, to muddy up the plain vanilla application of Robert's Rules of Order.

Your first recourse is Robert's Rules of Order, namely: 1.) POINT OF ORDER 2.) APPEAL The appeal puts the decision in the hands of the members present, out of the hands of the chair. *** If your chair does not respect #1 and #2, then your second recourse is: 3.) FIND A NEW CHAIR. This may involve disciplinary procedures: suspension, expulsion, etc. *** Q Where are you in terms of "steps already tried" (and failed)?

Not quite. You are still obligated to follow the common parliamentary law. *** But without a handbook to go by, no one in your organization will be able to tell apart the common parliamentary law from unique bizarre practices. -- The conflict of opinions will be many.

The chair has obligations. The parliamentarian has obligations. The average member sitting out in the assembly hall has freedoms which the chair and the parliamentarian do not have. The two are bound by parliamentary rules of behavior which are not binding on the average member. THAT is what I mean. *** George Demeter, in the end-papers of his book ("Parliamentary Law and Procedure"), has an interesting list. It describes what one can do to achieve passage of a motion, or to achieve defeat of a motion. All within the rules. THAT is what i mean. ***

Q. What happens when _____ (a.) the chair FAILS to announce the result of a COUNTED vote, and (b.) the chair continues with the next item on the agenda? Q. Do 100% of the possible motion on page 408 become impossible? become out of order?

What do you mean? (a.) to ADD a new person to the list of nominees? (b.) to SUBTRACT a person whom the Nom. Comm. nominated? There is nothing in Robert's Rules of Order which allows a board to falsify a committee report.

"... the motion was not adopted ..."? Once the chair puts the question, and completes the counting (!!) the ayes and nays, and moves on to the next agenda item, the question about "whether the motion which was voted on at a tally of 18-2 is really truly adopted" is no longer in question. The minutes will reflect the 18 to 2 count. So without a timely point of order, there is no way to argue that this motion wasn't adopted.

See DIVISION OF A QUESTION. It certainly is in order to "pull out" one or several of the omnibus resolutions. There are different criteria for (a.) pulling upon a demand of a single member, vs. (b.) pulling only upon a majority vote. See The Book for what those differences are. I don't know your situation as I have not read the block of text.

This is typical of national organizations. -- 100% of the policy-making power lies in the hands of the board. The general membership, typically, is relegated to two things: (a.) elect its board; (b.) amend its bylaws. Because your bylaws (well, your limited citation of "that's all they say" of your bylaws) reserve no power to the general membership, then your chair's hesitancy is understandable. You've cited your bylaws, and cited no empowerment to the general membership outside of the typically two powers. The net effect is, the general membership is free to adopt anything, but it won't be a binding decision on behalf of the organization. Their adoptions can only be advisory in nature, or instructive in intent. The board will then have to take those "advisories" and "intents" and adopt a policy accordingly. -- Or not. Bottom line: No directory for you. Unless the board says so.

A1.) FALSE. A2.) TRUE • No parliamentary rule is violated when a motion is made which follows the template, "That Party P execute Action X." • No rule in Robert's Rules of Order demands anything like (a.) a dollar amount; (b.) a deadline; (c.) a ceiling or a floor (minimum or maximum).

A reminder of real life. Often, a suggestion of some kind (or here, an interruption of some kind) will obviate the goal/purpose/intent of a motion. The resulting motion (or resulting action) may have the psychological effect on the chair's mind of distracting the chair, so that the flow of the meeting is pushed toward the "newer" idea, or at least pushed away from the "older" idea. In such a case the "older" idea becomes moot. Typically, it no longer makes sense to "remember" the motion later, after the assembly has adequately handling whatever subject matter it was, in the newer way. *** Real life #2. I have seen countless boards treat their very own meetings as one giant "committee" -- where there is rapid interchange of conversation, and, not surprisingly, the chair is NOT the party who is the "hub" of the verbal interaction. In such a case, this kind of board meeting is turned into a "brain storm session" more so than a Robertian "deliberative assembly". I am not saying that such a board is right. (Their efficiency is always lower than average, and their meetings are always longer than necessary.) But I am saying that countless boards do degenerate into a kind of anarchy, this kind of "free for all". And when they do, their resulting motion is more or less a "Frankenstein's monster" of creation, and less so a Robertian textbook ideal. The net result is that the "older" ideas, blurted out loosely and rapidly, become morphed (evolved? crafted?) into an adoptable motion. It then becomes useless to ask what the parliamentary status is, of Dr. Frankenstein's original bits and pieces, and try to adopt those bits and pieces as if they were ready to adopt at the time of their discard-ment or their morph-ment (whatever direction they took). *** I do not know if the original poster's scenario is a match for my above scenario. But statistically, if I were in Las Vegas, I'd bet money that it was. -- Because it so often is.

Do they? "Should"? The difference of "should" vs. "shall" may make a big difference. *** "Previously"? The fact that a precedent has been set may make a big difference.

A1.) In general, for "ordinary acts of the society" (RONR's term): • Whatever is adopted, may be amended or rescinded. • And whatever is rejected, may be "renewed" (RONR's tem) in the next session (i.e., the next order of business). *** A2.) "Yes", in general. *** The only exceptions for the "general" case would be thing like previous notice, or a customized rule (e.g., bylaw, special rule of order, etc.). And it seems you have a customized rule in place: >> Only a No voting member could put the vote on the floor again at the same meeting, and refused.

Statements S7, S5, S4, S3, are arguments supporting your position. Statements S1, S2, S6, are arguments supporting the officer's position. You have ambiguities. That is why a VOTE on a MOTION to ACCEPT a resignation is required. -- To avoid the inevitable "He Said, She Said" back-and-forth arguments. *** Robert's Rules of Order, if taken as the standard by which to judge, would imply that, since no acknowledgment by vote exists, then the minutes are in error, and therefore, the resignation has never been accepted. And, vice-versa, you may take S3, S4, S5, S7, and present a very good argument (!) that the officer is considered "resigned".