J. J.

I would suggest that, instead of coin toss, you use the words "by casting lots," or "by random means." You could have a three way tie, and I've never seen a three sided coin.

A petition would only mean that people that signed it express no confidence with the three board member. It could be given as correspondence to the board, which could totally ignore it.

The question is, "Members of what?" A board is a type of assembly, as defined in RONR (p. 5, ll. 13-18). So we have two types of assemblies, the "the assembly of an organized society" and the board. We do not know which one is appointing this committee, but normally, both could. Each of these assemblies have separate membership (in theory, the members of each committee not even overlap). If the "assembly of an organized society" authorizes someone to appoint members of a given committee, then the person selecting the committee, would have to choose from members of that assembly, the "the assembly of an organized society," unless that assembly permits the selector to appoint people that are not "the assembly of an organized society." if a board authorizes someone to appoint members of a given committee, then the person selecting the committee, would have to choose from members of the assembly that creating the committee would have to choose from members of that assembly, the board, unless that assembly permits the selector to appoint people that are not board members.

I would agree that the society could discipline the member. There is nothing in RONR that would make the practice permitted or prohibited.

There is no prohibition in RONR relating to rescinding a contract (p. 208). It may not be advisable to do so, and I would advise you to that you should contact an attorney licensed to practice in your state. It would not violate any rule in RONR for a assembly to rescind a contract.

Minutes are taken, and are approved in short executive session. Unless released by that body (or possibly a higher level assembly), They remain in executive session. See page 95.

Duplicate, see other post.

There is nothing in RONR about size of a nominating committee, nor if the number of members should be odd or even. RONR strongly recommends that the president should not be a member.

If the "assembly" is the board in this case, it would. If this is a committee is one of the board, the president would need the board's permission to add any one who is not a member of the board.

Well, it would depend on the bylaws and on the committee. Assume the bylaws say the president has the ability to "appoint all committees (without any qualification)," and the bylaws say that the "the assembly shall appoint the Discipline Committee." I would not agree that the president could appoint the Discipline Committee.

I do not agree that the statement is clear. It is ambiguous enough for me to raise that possibility. It is enough that, if I was talking to Clamdigger directly, I would be asking what this "matter" is. There are a few motions, or "matters," that cannot be reconsidered; to me. it looks like it could be a bylaw amendment. This "matter" may be a "plain vanilla main motion" that can be reconsidered. It may not be a "plain vanilla main motion," that cannot be considered. I don't know which. If clamdigger would like to add some details, I'd welcome it.

Again agreeing. If the chair said, "If there is no objection, the revision is adopted," or something to that effect, this was adopted,

I was looking the description, and I not sure if it is, of if it is Amend or Amend Something Previously Adopted (ASPA). Clambdigger's description is: " A matter is properly before the body for consideration. An amendment to the matter is made and passes. Later during the same meeting, a Motion for Reconsider the amendment that passed is made, receives a second and passes." Is that "matter" a main motion or is is this "matter" something that has been adopted? It it is ASPA, once that motion is adopted, it would not be subject to reconsider (p. 307, #8). If "matter" in this case is an original main motion, yes, the vote on the subsidiary motion to Amend could be reached by Reconsider; if it is a case of ASPA, that has been adopted, it cannot.

If this is a committee of the board, I think the president would need the approval of the board (though I can see the other side). If it is a committee of the society as a whole, then the president could appoint the person who is a member of the society, but not on the board.

I don't disagree at all. However, it has been my experience that want to challenge an action often cite a rule, the violation of which does not invalidate the action. In this case the secretary might be looking for some ground to challenge the adoption of the amendment, and chose the "there were no motions made" argument. It is not the first time I have heard this argument used(and yes I wrote something on it in the 1990's). The sole question that could invalidate the amendment is if a majority of the entire membership was not present. In some organizations, that would be a near impossibility, while in others it might occur at nearly every meeting.

It would be completely improper, but we don't know if that is what happened.

If no one objected, and a majority of the membership, yes, I'm sure. Even the person complaining seems to concede that an action was taken.

That was my thinking. In this case, however, the vote was by unanimous consent. We don't really have to worry about it. I do, however agree with your answer. We still do not have DonB's answer.

If your bylaws have no clause on amending the bylaws in the bylaws, you would need a two thirds vote, with previous notice or a vote of a majority of the entire membership. Was there a majority of the entire membership at the meeting?

Assuming that RONR is your parliamentary authority, you would need a two thirds vote, with previous notice or a vote of a majority of the entire membership. Was the majority of the entire membership present at the meeting? Unanimous consent is not limited to "small items."

The chair can require that it be written.

Thanks, I missed that. Unless there is some problem with notice, these were properly adopted.

I am assuming that this was not the annual meeting. Was this rule put in the bylaws? Is it just a motion. There could be some problems related to absentee rights, but, as Guest said, motions are not needed. The chair assumed the motion.

Well, I can't come up with a motion to go out of executive session that would required a 2/3 vote. If there were a special rule that said, "All meetings shall be held in executive session," I could see a 2/3 needed to go into open session, but I think that would be a motion to suspend the rules.

Well, if the motion "to go into executive session for the rest of the meeting" is adopted, it would have to be rescinded in order to come out of executive session. That was only thing I could see as an example. I'm trying to find an example that would need a 2/3 vote to leave executive session.