Tom Coronite

Yes. In fact pp 417-4188 of RONR shows what the teller's report should look like in announcing the results of a ballot vote.

I reported a number of the posts as spam, probably about 10 of them. But he was posting them faster than I could report them!

Perhaps this is not a hurdle at all. Perhaps the board is simply looking for input so as to be well-informed before they make the decision that you earlier indicated is theirs to make. If the board were to publish their names in the bulletin and add a requirement that X number of people must recommend the potential members before admission, or something like that, I could easily see that as adding a hurdle.

Does a motion seeking approval of something that doesn't really need approval, by that fact alone, conflict with the bylaws?

2) how do I reflect this in the minutes? You should reflect it in the minutes simply the way that it happened: the first motion passing, then the second motion passing. 1) can a motion that's already been voted on be "struck" later on It appears that the first motion previously adopted was amended by adopting the 2nd motion. Hopefully it was adopted by the necessary threshold.

In the past, I personally found it helpful to stop adding "of order" to "standing rules" and stick with the terms as listed in RONR. It was a mistake I was making and when I realized it, I found it helpful in understanding the distinction Mr. Huynh makes. I only say this because I see that in your topic title you appear to make the same error I had made.

Well, that's exactly what I was suggesting in my original post ("Is it proper to adopt the new bylaws with a proviso that the applicable number of committee members be reached (eventually) through attrition?) and asking if it would be proper to do so. Because if we adopt bylaws that say the number shall be 12, we'd have to eliminate 3 to get to 12. So if a proviso grandfathering the "extra 3" is proper (and I realize now that it is) then keeping the 15 is what we'd do, and not replace anyone before we got to 12.

Very good. Thank you.

I don't think that would be practical. To do that, we'd have to make the bylaws effective in a couple, few years. There are other changes to the bylaws that are needed today. After reading the section on provision to the bylaws, I'm left thinking a time based proviso is what's proper. But is that all? As such a proviso would create more problems than it solves, I'm wondering if a proviso stating "the bylaws are adopted but the provisions limiting the number of XX committee members is not effective until such number is attained through attrition" would be proper. Or would you see such a provision as specifying a time that portion of the bylaws takes effect?

Our church is currently considering a revision to our bylaws. Some committees currently have many members who are in name only. The revised bylaws would reduce the number of committee members. For example, the Diaconate now has 15 elected members out of a possible 32 positions. The revision would provide for only 12 positions. Is it proper to adopt the new bylaws with a proviso that the applicable number of committee members be reached (eventually) through attrition? Or is our only option to amend (increase) the number of positions on the committee or eliminate some members?

It's possible for you to provide for co-presidents in your bylaws. But it's not recommended in RONR. Perhaps some duties could be delegated without resorting to "co" anything.

If the society has not enumerated their duties, is it possible they serve no real function, and are no longer needed? Perhaps a useful bylaws amendment would be to remove them.

RONR p. 482 line 18ff states that directors should be elected the same way and at the same time as other officers. Would that include the provision of page 447 line 18ff which states it is possible to elect officers from outside the membership? I can find where RONR provides for nonmembers being ex officio members of the board. Can they, then, also serve as elected members of the board?

Did someone simply make this statement before elections were held, or is it written in your bylaws?

That is not the conclusion I would draw, FWIW. Your original post describes that the "determining a date" centered on your inability to attend at a time/date others could. A committee chair does not have veto power, as has been noted, and the chair's absence doesn't in and of itself mean the meeting can't/shouldn't be held. I would think twice before sending that email out.

I have encountered several times among church folk the notion that the society can vote to suspend the bylaws in their entirety, do what they need to do, then vote to reinstate them. Perhaps this is what the OP had in mind. "No" seems to cover it. :-)

Excellent analysis above, and I apologize to the OP for any confusion caused by assuming "2nd reading" referred to something else, a different practice we see mentioned here from time to time.

You won't find it, it's not there. Past parliamentarian was mistaken.

Because the OP added the last sentence "The proposed budget had increased that line item" after asking how "this" should be handled, I surmised he was asking how the dissatisfaction with the particular line item in question should be handled, not how tabling or postponing the budget should be handled. But maybe not. I guess we won't know unless David Stokes comes back.

Why not offer an amendment to the proposed budget? An amendment to keep the legal defense item the same might have been the way to go, especially as it appears you had the votes to pass it. Otherwise, don't you just have the same problem at the next meeting?

Thank you, Timothy Fish, that's helpful. Along with rereading post 17, I think I now get the point.

A question of bylaws interpretation then? What "a majority of the board" means will come down to the specific circumstances (including the specifics of vacancies in this case) and how the organization interprets them. Would that be right? (I don't have the advantage of seeing the Q&A #365 you've referenced.)

Does this then become a question of intent? If a board with 11 positions nefariously conspires not to fill the 2 vacancies, and continues in this vein for a significant period of time for the purposes of hindering business, that is a situation where the quorum remains as a majority of the positions. But if there is good will, and an honest attempt to conduct business while 2 positions remain vacant, and the remaining 9 board members honestly seek to fill the vacancies as the bylaws provide, then the quorum is a majority of the (remaining) board members? And deciding which scenario exists is an 'interpretation of the bylaws' scenario properly determined by the organization?

hmmm... Just when I thought I pretty much had a handle on the basics. :-/

On which point? Not that the quorum remains at 6, is it? or going to the membership for an election?