J. J.

The member should consult the bylaws. Something that somebody, or some body, says does not supersede the bylaws.

The mover of the motion. If the minutes had been released, a motion "That the board minutes be published," would require a majority vote.

I have to agree with Mr. Martin's premise on two different things. The assembly on a case by case basis, has the right to "suspend the rules and require the board minutes to be read at this meeting and afterward published." As a rule, the assembly has the authority to give orders to an officer. The rule that would be suspended is that only members of the particular body have a right to see the minutes. Second, Mr. Martin seems to be saying that a special rule would be require to do this permanently. I agree with him on that.

We don't know that both were closed on the 8th. It is possible that votes could be cast for the change balloting to still be open. If it wasn't, that would create the problem, leading to my second point, i.e. would this have effected the result? It very well could, but we don't know.

A point of order submitted to the assembly can be referred to a committee, inclusive of the board. It is likely that it was submitted to the assembly, perhaps not in correct form, since there were "somewhat heated discussions." If there was no objection to the president's action at the time, it was referred to board.

If the body authorized the board to do that, even passively, yes. At least in my mind, there are a number of questions that would before there could be a decision. It is possible for the bylaws to have been violated and for the vote to have been legitimate. The "worst" possibility is that, if the changes to the Member Practices were adopted, they would be null and void, but that could not be determined from your posts. Perhaps, if you posted the total number of members, and the voting result, I could say something a bit more definite.

I am not sure what you mean by "not being treated equally?" All the ballot cast by 5/15 would have to be counted, and there is no "closing" of the electronic "polling place." Anybody who wanted to cast a vote before 5/15 could and could cast it via mail or Internet; that is the situation I'm envisioning. Yes, when I say "every member" I mean every member. I would add that if it could be shown that the number of people who did not vote did not effect the result, then the actual balloting would stand. For example, the total membership is 100; a 2/3 vote is required. 80 people vote and 67 vote in favor of the amendment; in that case, the amendment was adopted. I think pp. 252-3 would cover the situation. See also pp. 445-6. I do not see this as a matter of notice, but of depriving members of the right to vote. I would note that a point of order could be raised that the bylaws were not followed, but that may not be sufficient to invalidate the vote.

If ballots that arrived between 5/8 and 5/15 were not credited, the vote was null and void. However, if they are counted, the bylaws have been followed in this matter. Basically, there would be two possible ways for this error to be corrected without re-balloting. 1. If all ballots that were received by 5/15 are counted, then there is no violation of the bylaws. The statement in conflict with the bylaws has no validity and any member could have consulted the bylaws to see the proper return time. Depending on how the electronic voting was handled, this might not have been possible. 2. Every member voted on or before 5/8. If any ballots arriving after 5/8 were destroyed, and it could possibly effect the result, then re-balloting will be needed. It might be necessary to have an adjourned meeting for thebresults to be announced. Before I would be willing to say that this is null and void, I would need more information.

If that is the bylaw, then, as Mr. Honemann, it would require the vote of a majority of the members present to adopt something. The president may vote when it effects the result. Assume that there are 18 members present, including the president. 9 members vote "yes." 3 votes "no." The president may vote because it would effect the result; a majority of members present is 10. If the president votes yes, the motion will have 10 voted and be adopted. If he votes no, or abstains, the motion does not get votes and is defeated. Neither the president nor any member can be compelled to vote (p. 407, ll, 12-15).

Voting by white and black ball is permitted, by the footnote on p. 412 . Those are not slips of paper.

I take it that the "business meeting" is a meeting of the members. I also take it that the board members are speaking out on a pending motion, e.g. a motion to approve or rescind something the board did. There is no prohibition on a member of the board, who is also a voting member of the assembly, from speaking on the issue, when that issue is pending. Unless your rules say otherwise, the members of the board need not speak with one voice at a business meeting.

Your colleague is incorrect. I just saw it within the last minute.

Yes, I would say the motion, that the motion "that the resignation be accepted" is an incidental motion (pp. 289-90). That said, something raised under the device of a Question of Privilege is not necessarily a main motion and would include an incidental motion. P. 225 does specifically refer to sections 32 and 33, the first be a Request to Be Excused From a Duty (and the second being Requests and Inquiries). Earlier in the thread, I think I mentioned that accepting the resignation of an officer would likely constitute a Question of Privilege; I do not know that this is the resignation of an officer. In this case, we are talking about removing a pastor. A pastor may not be an officer of the assembly. He may be an employee; in some denominations, the pastor/pastors are not actually members of that congregation. Is the post of pastor "essential to the functioning of a society or assembly?" From a procedural standpoint, no. Unless he some duty within the assembly, the meeting could be conducted without him. From a non-procedural standpoint, maybe. Edit: I did refer to the motion to remove someone, an officer, as being a question of privilege I do agree that a motion "that the resignation be accepted," could, in some circumstances, be raised under the device of a question of privilege.

Germaneness has nothing to do with this. It has not been ruled out of order because it is non-germane. There has been no suggestion that it has been. No, you must have missed: It is perfectly possible that one of these motions could be postponed and the other introduced. I would permit one motion to be subject to Lay on the Table, and once no longer pending, the other motion to be introduced.

Agreed. The best way to handle it to say, in debate, "The member who said ______ certainly does not speak for me."

I think once one of those was adopted, the other would be dilatory. There is no problem, once one of those motions is no longer before the assembly with introducing the other motion. The motion to accept a resignation from a position and one removing someone from a position (or starting the process by preferring charges or appointing an investigating committee) are two different things. The "essential idea" of a motion to accept a resignation is different that the "essential idea" of a motion to remove someone from a position. You are equating those two things and they are not the same. You start from an incorrect premise and follow from that premise.

If the proposed amendment transforms a one "parliamentary motion" into another, then it is out of order. Since I am "absolutely correct" that the proposed amendment converts the motion from an incidental motion to a main motion, it is out of order. That said, if the request was not granted, or was not before the assembly, then a motion to remove someone from a position, or preferring charges, is in order. Why? Each is a different motion.

This is not a change from an original main to an incidental main motion. It is a change from an incidental motion, a Request to Be Excused From a Duty, to an incidental main motion. Those are different classes of motions.

This has nothing to do with germaness; these are two separate classes of motions. A motion to accept a request to resign from a position is an incidental motion. A motion to remove someone from a position is an incidental main motion, possibly Rescind. This violates the rule that an amendment is improper because it "would have the effect of converting one parliamentary motion into another (p. 138, ll. 34-35)." The amendment would change an incidental motion into a main motion. There is a substantive difference between removing someone from a position and granting that person's request to leave that position. That is clearly shown, on p. 292, ll. 7-10. They are two different things that can only be adopted by two different classes of motions.

That is why I suggested postponing the acceptance of the resignation.

The chair would rule that the "essential idea" of a motion to accept a resignation is not the same as the "essential idea" a motion to remove someone from a position. There was discussion of the case of the New York Bar removing Richard Nixon after he submitted his resignation, and it was declined. Further, RONR notes that a resignation sent to avoid charges may be rejected, and charges adopted (p. 292, ll. 7-10). That gives a very clear indication that a motion to accept a resignation is not the same as a motion to prefer charges.

I don't think that would be in order, as a substitute. It would change the motion form from a Request to be Excused From a Duty to an incidental main motion (probably raised a Question of Privilege). It would change the form enough for me to rule it out of order (pp. 138-9). The resignation could be rejected and a motion that the pastor be dismissed could be entertained. I would permit the motion to accept the resignation to be postponed, or even subject to Lay on the Table, and the motion to dismiss to be taken up. I would treat a resignation as being a different question as a motion to remove someone from a position.

If the title " Executive Director" is established in the bylaws, you can only change this by amending the bylaws.

He said meeting during a convention. He did write of it "during convention sessions," not while the convention was recessed or adjourned. It is an interesting opinion (Parliamentary Opinions, Opinion 280.). If the board meeting was able to be properly called, and not disruptive to the assembly, both meetings could happen at the same time and in, at least, overlapping space. In a similar situation, a committee could meet while the assembly was meeting, in the same room (even a committee larger than one). I think it would be cumbersome, and often not practical, but it could be done.

Technically, they wouldn't be meeting at the same time. I'm thinking of a situation where the board members are members of the assembly and, without leaving the meeting, have a meeting in the corner of the room. The still participate in the assembly meeting, but they are also doing business in a board meeting. IMO, it is not a good idea, but it can happened. It is certainly something that would be exceptional.