Rob Elsman

I am sorry you are confused. Insofar as there are any facts presented, I get it that your "slate" (?) did not win, but I completely fail to understand what "such a cloud" there might be.

Just being a member of the executive board does not empower the member to have a committee do anything. What was the source of your authority to make a request to the committee? Is the architectural committee a body that is immediately subordinate to the executive board or the general membership assembly? What was your source of authority to ask the board to "overrule" (?) the decision of the committee? What was, or would have been, the source of authority for the executive board to "overrule" the decision of the committee? If the governing documents "reference that we are to conduct business by Robert's rules of order", on what authority does the executive board not do it?

Was this individual the chief teller? the presiding officer? Why did the individual commence presenting or announcing if what he was reading from was apparently illegible from the beginning? I do not think I understand the facts presented. I am not even certain if the results of the vote were ever announced by the chair.

It's your rule, you tell us. 🙂

I do not know the answer to the question whether the election was invalid on account that the result of the vote, as announced by the chair, violated the bylaws by declaring more winners than there are seats to win. The alternative is that the election was valid, but the six winners are those who received the most votes (all having received a majority vote); in this case, the chair would simply make a corrected announcement of the result of the vote. In the end, some member needs to raise a Point of Order. The chair will either make a ruling (which is subject to appeal), or, even better, submit the matter to the assembly for its judgment in the first instance.

The motion to adopt the resolution was rejected. The item of business is completely transacted, and there is nothing further to wait for. The body has decided not to do what the resolution proposed.

Because there are so many possibilities, it is best to read RONR (12th ed.), especially §§ 16 and 41.

If main motions or amendments are of such length that the secretary cannot take them down when they are read aloud, then they should be submitted in writing to the secretary.

No. If this is an accurate reading of the bylaws, then the answer must be "no".

No. The fact that notice of an item of business is included in the call of a meeting does not, by itself, place business before the assembly.

I am just guessing that what is really being asked is whether a standing committee can originate a recommendation about a topic that is under its care. The answer is certainly "yes". The committee can adopt a report containing the recommendation, present the report at a meeting of its parent body, and move the adoption of the recommendation at the conclusion of the reading of the report.

Well, the citation wasn't just difficult for me. Mr. Honemann, supporting Mr. Martins' opinion, seemed to venture that the officer's report could be laid on the table, apparently even if the report were to be given only for information. However, my reading of the book does not support this opinion, and no citation was provided by Mr. Martin or Mr. Honemann. It sounds like a case of "do as I say, not as I write", which I have always been opposed to on this forum.

Reports of committees and subcommittees can, indeed, be presented without recommendations. If desired, after the report has been presented, any member of the receiving body can make a motion dealing with the topic of the report (assuming the motion does not require previous notice). After a subcommittee has presented a report with a recommendation, the reporting member may move the adoption of the recommendation. However, if he fails to do so, the chair may call for the proper motion or assume that the proper motion has been made and state the question. At any rate, once the question is before the body, it is handled like any other main motion, which is debatable and amendable.

If this organization has an elections committee that "runs" elections, it should get rid of it. The assembly "runs" its elections with the assistance of its officers. Likewise, the assembly is the judge in any controversy arising from an election. There should be no need for an elections committee to do these things.

I agree with Mr. Brown. This is not a question about parliamentary procedure; rather, it pertains to the delegation of authority to the Managing Director.

I'll take my bow, but I think this was a harder question than it should have been.

Would the proper motion be an incidental main motion, if made before the report was presented?

I own sense of it is that your answer is found in RONR (12th ed.) 14:11.

A president's report presented for information only is neither a motion nor a "question that is actually before the assembly".

I forgot to mention that members can abstain from voting at the meeting, either by not returning a ballot or casting a blank ballot, if they prefer.

It is, indeed, possible for a candidate to withdraw between rounds of voting, but the withdrawal needs to be done at a meeting. It is not clear from the facts given that this happened. I sort of gather that it did not, but I do not understand how the withdrawal happened. Nominations cannot be re-opened without a vote of the assembly at a meeting. If voting is by ballot, another round of voting should be held as soon as possible. Voters could vote for the remaining candidate or write in the name of another eligible person. At any rate, someone will have to get a two-thirds vote to win. Next meeting, bring your onesies and prepare for the long haul.

Well, even if we generously grant that the members would want to implement proper parliamentary procedure were they to know what it is, it seems clear to me that the collective knowledge of parliamentary procedure in this body is not very good. Even worse, the presiding officer does not seem to know very much about the rules or the role of the presiding officer during meetings. So, rather than wait until an "incident" happens again, I would recommend a proactive, preventative approach through immediate education. By itself, though, education will not prevent "incidents". The members must commit to the enforcement of the rules and an insistence that the presiding officer properly carry out his responsibilities.

Take a look at Rescind; Amend Something Previously Adopted, RONR (12th ed.) §35.

If this is a homework assignment, please note that most public libraries have copies available to read in the library. These copies are usually found in the reference stacks. Some libraries also have copies of the book available to be checked out and taken home to read. At any rate, to be sure you have the clearest exposition on the subject, make sure you are consulting the 12th edition. The authors have fairly recently modified the text of the relevant section to clarify it.

Since the attack occurred during a previous session, it is unlikely that a Question of Privilege affecting the rights or privileges of a member would be the correct way to handle the matter, since there would not be the urgency necessary to interrupt the pending main motion motion or what adheres to it. Ordinary main motions or resolutions can be used to originate a disciplinary procedure against the attacker, or a main motion or resolution can be made to propose that the assembly censures the attacker without a disciplinary procedure.