Rob Elsman

The "proposed amendment" was actually the incidental main motion, Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted. Thus, the amendment to it was a primary amendment, and the amendment to the amendment was a secondary amendment. The confusion arises from the name of the motion, Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted.

Minutes of an executive board are to be permanently retained. Therefore, the secretary should keep custody of them in a way that is safe and secure for the long term.

The subsidiary motion, Lay on the Table, is not in order when the sole purpose for the motion is to permanently dispose of the pending main motion and suppress it for the remainder of the session. The proper motion is Postpone Indefinitely. Lay on the Table is used when urgent business needs to be taken up immediately. When all business is completed in one meeting of a few hours, Lay on the Table will only rarely be in order.

If this assembly regularly meets as often as quarterly, it should likely use the established order of business rather than adopting an agenda at the beginning of each meeting. Assuming RONR (12th ed.) is the organization's parliamentary authority, the established order of business is the standard order of business given in RONR (12th ed.) 41:5, unless the organization has adopted its own order of business. The manner of arranging items of business and carrying forward items of business not reached is described in RONR (12th ed.) §41.

Re-read item (b).

It might also be worth saying that a special committee ordinarily does not have the power to permanently dispose of a main motion that is referred to it. The proper course is for the committee to report back to its parent body with a recommendation that the main motion be rejected.

Yes, this is true; but, note the special rules for the motion, Reconsider, that apply to committees. RONR (12th ed.) 37:10.

The rules regarding quorum cannot be suspended. RONR (12th ed.) 25:10. If it is true that the convention adjourned sine die and is not authorized to meet again, it seems there is no course of action to take under the rules of parliamentary procedure. Whether there might be a remedy at law, I cannot even guess. All this goes to show that delegates to conventions have important duties to perform, and these duties ought not be abandoned without an important and urgent reason. Dereliction of duty is a punishable offense. It might be wise for the organization to determine, if it can, who left early and initiate disciplinary operations to investigate the reasons why each delegate abandoned his duties with the aim of punishing those who did not have a legitimate excuse.

This is a very common situation in new developments. The weighted voting is intended to protect the developer's investment until the cost of the development can be recouped. You would need to speak to an attorney about the possibility of getting out from under this provision.

Why does @Wright Stuff keep mentioning a convention when @Tomm says the relevant body is an "Annual Membership Meeting". The proper answer to Tomm's question may very well be a different answer than the answer that applies to a convention. To answer Tomm's question (and disregarding Wright Stuff's intervention), the result of a vote must be announced at a quorate meeting. If a quorum just can't be re-obtained, the assembly can fix the time to which to adjourn and adjourn. In this case, the announcement of the vote will be made at the adjourned meeting immediately following the reading and approval of the minutes of the last meeting (assuming the adjourned meeting is held on a later day).

Well, for example, does the rule mean that the chair cannot make a ruling on a Point of Order without submitting the matter to the judgment of the assembly by majority vote? One might reasonably suppose such a ruling is one of the "all decisions", but I have to doubt that the bylaw intends this. I think it is more likely that someone found some boilerplate language somewhere, and the assembly adopted the language without having any particular intention about the meaning or consequences of it. For another example, does the bylaw mean that rules of order and motions that have the effect of suspending rules of order can be adopted by majority vote? That's a pretty dangerous interpretation for an ordinary society, but it seems to me to be a reasonable interpretation of "all decisions". My own sense of it is that the bylaw is stupid nonsense. I think it is uninterpretable with any kind of reasonable accuracy--I wouldn't even begin to try.

That's an interesting catch. 👍

I think the answer depends on whether the adoption of Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted is one of those "...all decisions...". I would not dare tread in this territory, since I could not possibly know what was intended by "all decisions" when the bylaw was adopted.

😬

Mr. Honemann has previously and explicitly denied on the forum that the minutes must be arranged in temporal order.

I'm not going around in circles.

I'm saying to wait until the resignation is accepted so that there is a vacancy to fill before giving previous notice of the election to fill it.

I have never heard of a parliamentarian presenting a report at a meeting. If, for historical purposes, the parliamentarian wishes to enshrine the reasons for his advice, the most he should do is submit his writing to the organization's historian for archiving.

The giving of previous notice when a resignation has merely been "formally submitted" (but not yet accepted) may cause members to make expensive and disruptive accommodations to attend the meeting for the purpose of participating in the election, when, in fact, the request to accept the resignation might be postponed or rejected. I do not favor this.

Yes--both debate and amendment.

I suppose the easiest remedy is for the disciplinary committee to reject the prejudiced recommendation of the subcommittee if the recommendation cannot stand on its own merits.

I am not able to distill a question about parliamentary procedure from all this. Is there a question about the procedures used to transact business in a meeting?

It seems frivolous to me to give previous notice when there is no reasonable basis to anticipate that an election will occur or at what meeting it will occur, if one does occur at all. Without the actual acceptance of the resignation, the certainty of a vacancy and the timing of an election to fill it cannot be reasonably ascertained; thus, previous notice should not be given. I say wait until there is certainly a vacancy and will be an election to fill it before giving the required notice.

I suspect there is something wrong with the composition of the minutes and reports more than anything wrong with the order of business.

In a small board such as this one, the presiding officer who is a voting member should vote on all matters, right along with the other members. He should certainly vote for himself if he thinks he is the best person to carry out the duties.