Tom Coronite

Provided that the motion required a majority vote to pass, it did indeed pass by the vote you describe. You had 3 yes votes, which is more than the no votes. That’s a majority.

Or, maybe the reports themselves should simply present the highlights, and eliminate the extraneous stuff. I don’t see why members need a heads up as to what items will be in the forthcoming report(s). And as Mr Honemann pointed out, doing so isn’t an agenda anyway. It sounds as if the custom that’s developed (which the OP says helps keeps the meeting moving according to plan) might be because the reports are lengthy and discussions go down rabbit holes.

Yes, good point.

Who knows? Your rule is your rule, and it's certainly not what RONR prescribes for a motion to be debated. Having said that, one might argue a "2/3 majority vote" being required just to debate a motion (when RONR only requires a second) would be incredibly stringent.

I don't think it's a question of which is better. Each option has its merits, depending on the situation and the wishes of the society in question. It's not without merit, for example, for a society to incorporate a higher threshold (such as majority of those present) for matters they believe to be of extra importance.

I once pastored a church where this was a problem. Meetings went on and on because, instead of a focus on business, meetings were focused on informational updates. People waxed eloquently all night about Mildred’s gall bladder operation, the kinds of desserts people favored at the fair, etc. We worked together to try and improve the efficiency and productivity of our meetings using RONR. One thing I found helpful was increasing the avenues of information dissemination outside the meetings. Using newsletters, email updates, etc., seemed to reduce the time spent at business meetings discussing such things. I wish you luck.

It might be wise to raise a point of order when the chair makes such a decree, before the motion is debated and voted on. You shouldn’t wait to see if the motion passes despite the chair’s decree. Nonetheless, a motion that fails can be made again at a subsequent meeting.

I was considering that, too, but surmised that such a motion, while helpful if an ad hoc committee is created and appointed at a meeting, for example, is not helpful to the OP because the OP's bylaws require an election. Correct?

Would "Appointment by adoption of a motion naming members of a committee" (50:13e) be proper in this case? Or would it be improper because the bylaws specifically use the phrase "a nominating committee of three(3) members shall be elected" and such a motion would not be considered an election?

If your bylaws don't specify a process for nominations, 46:1-29 offers several possibilities, including nominations by committee. That is often how officers are nominated in ordinary societies, but it's not the only possibility. Nominations from the floor (without a committee) is also a possibility, yes. If you're asking what you should specify in your bylaws for a process, that's up to your organization. Again, 46:1-29 offers excellent choices.

In addition to Mr Gerber’s reply, I’d add that introducing new business is not the only way one might desire to change the agenda. One might want to change the order in which items are taken up, for example.

Based on your repeated mentions that this is something you (plural) WANT to do, I gotta figure you have a reason. Why isn’t that simply your rationale? It’s as if you’re asking forum members here, who have no idea why you want to do this, to identify a reason for why you’d want to do this.

Well, that’s a different question. The OP’s question was whether the pending bylaw would violate members’ rights (if adopted, presumably). And Mr. Katz answered that. It’s a completely different question to ask whether a bylaw that has not yet been adopted can be in effect. Of course, the answer is no.

So stay. Maintain the necessary quorum, and don't vote if you're so inclined.

Davidtx175, I’d encourage you to consider further the very important point I believe Mr. Gerber is getting at.

Ex-officio members are members by virtue of a held office. For example, the treasurer of a society may be an ex-officio member of the finance board because he holds the office of treasurer. The term simply refers to how he became part of the board. In this example, he's on the board not because he was elected or appointed as a board member, but because of the office held (treasurer), to which he may have been elected or appointed. Typically the provisions for this are in the bylaws. "An honorary office is in fact not an office but - like honorary membership - a complimentary title that may be bestowed on members or nonmembers." (47:42) If you read further in 47:42, it refers to electing as the usual way one would become an honorary member or honorary officer, and the distinction between the two.

Mr. Harrington, although it would not accomplish the annulment effect you seek, take a look at Use of a Preamble (10:16). "When special circumstances make it desirable to include a brief statement of background, the motion should be cast in the form of a resolution..." Again, not an annulment, but it may be a way for you to include and articulate your displeasure at the way the matter was originally handled, and thus make it part of getting it rescinded.

I believe I’m familiar with the situation (based on OP name and subject matter) and understand what you’re looking to do. Unfortunately, I don’t think you’ll find what you’re looking for in RONR. As Mr. Novosielski pointed out, rescinding the action of the Council can certainly be accomplished, per RONR, but erasing it entirely from the record is a very different matter.

And in addition to what Mr. Kapur has stated, if it happens to be a ballot vote, keep in mind that the presiding officer, if he's a member, can always vote at the time other members do. (45:28)

Not sure what you mean by "introduced". Had a motion been made? Seconded? Had debate begun? Basically, if they were never taken up, they can, at the next meeting, be brought up as new business. If they were pending when the meeting adjourned, they should come up under unfinished business & general orders. There is no "old business" category.

Or maybe an unexpected write-in candidate will emerge and everyone can ride the dark horse home early. 😉

To resolve an anticipated tie, you could try convincing someone to vote for someone else. To resolve an actual tie vote, vote again. And again if necessary. Perhaps someone will change his mind, a candidate may withdraw, or a third candidate a majority will support might emerge.

Although your bylaws apparently don’t specify who can call special meetings and how, based on your statement, perhaps an argument can be made the special meetings may be authorized, and are contemplated in the bylaws, based on your statement about the 2 weeks of notice from the pulpit. Armed with that perspective, I’d consider moving, at your upcoming December meeting, that a special meeting be called for such-and-such a date, at which a bylaw amendment will be considered. If your church approves that, some might consider that authoritative, although perhaps the entirety of your bylaws would suggest otherwise. Impossible, to say, not having seen them. I unfortunately have lots of experience with bad church bylaws. Not surprised you’re in such a position.

I absolutely see what Mr. Honemann is saying. But I’m wondering if their bylaws compel them to do something. A new member induction, at a certain time of year, to be precise. I suppose the devil is in the details of the bylaw wording.

Wait? What? Do your bylaws say there SHALL be a member induction, and it’s to be done at a certain time of year? Or do they say IF there is to be a member induction, it SHALL be done at a certain time of year?