J. J.

I think Josh is on the right track. Page 344 would permit the wording of motions that would not normally be permitted in debate, in dealing with censure or disciplinary motions. It follows that if the assembly, in that circumstance, can adopted a motion with language that attacks the subject, then they can discuss that motion.

Did the board formally adopt the report?

Note the "confirmation by voice vote." That is a yes/no vote. It also isn't actually an election.

Usually. It will depend on what authority the bylaws give to the board.

A committee could offer amendment of its own (p.176, ll. 20-32). I'm not, initially, seeing a problem.

This looks like this is a ratification as opposed to an election. The pastor makes a recommendation and the assembly may either approve or disapprove of it. The pastor submitted a name and the assembly rejected it. The pastor could submit the same name at a future session.

Yes, that is what I meant, and I should have been clearer. It is very possible that failure to pay dues could a ground in a disciplinary process for removing someone from membership. Unless the bylaws specify that the member is removed or suspended from membership when his dues are not paid, the the member has all the rights of membership until there is disciplinary action.

There are two problems: 1. Unless the bylaws provide for a member being dropped for nonpayment of dues, he cannot be removed. 2. Unless the bylaws or rules grant the board the authority to remove a member, they cannot (see Chapter XX).

I wanted it clarified that, in this case, the motion was adopted and it is too late to raise a point of order regarding the validity of the motion on that ground.

Around 80% of the voters were in favor, according to the Guest Dick F.

Wouldn't p. 251, ll. 12-15, apply in this case, i.e. that the motion was "adopted by the vote required to rescind or amend the previously adopted motion?" It may be a situation where the action was wrong, but it is too late to do anything about it.

A motion "to deny" does not exist in RONR, though it is used in some governmental bodies (and creates a whole bunch of procedural problems). It would be possible to Amend Something Previously Adopted (ASPA), which would be the "revisiting" part. It would be possible to move to Postpone Indefinitely the ASPA.

Fixed it.

There could be a requirement where a certain number of members must participate in the vote for a decision to be valid. It would require that members give some sign of participating.

"Ms. Patterson made a motion to [text]. The motion was laid on the table." "Ms. Smith mad a motion [text]. After debate, the motion was adopted." "Mr. Jones made a that the following resolution be adopted [text]. The resolution was not adopted." "The motion [insert the text of Patterson's motion] was taken from the table."

The person could move to refer the subject to a Committee of the Whole, without making a definitive motion to do something, e.g. "I move that a committee of the whole be appointed to consider methods of fundraising." The "committee," which is everyone, could then discuss ideas and perhaps form a motion.

Someone who is not a member of the society may be elected to office, unless the bylaws say otherwise. The ability to vote has nothing to do with it (pp. 447-8).

I thought that you would agree, but I didn't want anyone to reach that conclusion.

I will disagree because the word "ballot" appears in the question. If this is a secret ballot for election to office and is required in the bylaws, and the bylaws do not specifically permit a plurality vote to elect, a point of order could be raised at a future meeting(p. 405, ll. 4-6; p. 263, ll. 7-11). I would give a different answer if the parliamentary authority was the 4th to 6th editions.

I agree with the others that suggest that a suspension would be subject to Amend Something Previously Adopted, at least to the extent of reducing the length of the suspension. There may be due process rights for the suspended member that preclude an extension of penalties. In other words, if a member is suspended for 12 months in March, it would be possible for the body that imposed the penalty to end the penalty in June. I would question if it would be possible to extend the penalty in June for a total 18 months, at least without going through additional disciplinary action.

There is nothing about how a ballot of this type should be written. Unless your bylaws (or applicable statute) permit a vote by mail or e-mail voting, the vote is void.

No, but someone could effectively cover that position. For example, a secretary pro tem could be appointed for the meeting, in order to take minutes.

I did see that in looking at the text. However, that would not preclude an exception being created elsewhere. In other words, that would not be enough to rule out that interpretation. The rule that "If the bylaws authorize certain things specifically, other things of the same class are thereby prohibited (pp. 589-90)," could also apply. They specifically permit, as you note, the AKA delegate to serve without term limits, which would limit other board members from being exempted. One question is if "Section 2." makes the delegate a board member. I don't have an answer.:)

There is a principle that the general rule in the bylaws yields to the specific rule (p. 589, ll. 17-32). It is reasonable to interpret the bylaw as setting a general rule limiting officers to four terms of two years, and the specific rule is for the past president to serve that specific term. That is certainly not the only interpretation. I agree that this should be decided by the assembly and that the bylaws should be amended to remove the ambiguity.

We might all be in complete agreement that this was a properly called meeting, and still find a problem. We might all agree that this was not a properly called meeting, but that there was no meeting as such, just dinner conversation.