Scorpion

I suggest you say "The chair recognizes the chairman of the Membership Committee for the report of that committee." Or, if you prefer, you can use the word "chair" instead of "chairman". (Dan Honemann, disguised as Scorpion)

I'm afraid that there is no such thing as a motion to rescind a letter of any sort, and a motion to rescind a motion authorizing the sending of a letter cannot be made after the letter has been sent. Perhaps if you would spell out exactly what motion you made (and which you expect to be brought up at your next meeting), persons responding here may be of greater assistance. It might also help if you would answer Mr. Goodwiller's question (which was, who issued or authorized the reprimand?). (Dan Honemann, disguised as Scorpion)

No, they can't. Bylaw amendments do not have, and cannot have, retroactive effect. For example, while it is possible for a bylaw amendment to abolish an office, thus legislating an officer out of office before the expiration of the term for which he was elected, this does not mean that he was not in office up until the amendment was adopted, and actions taken by him as an officer prior to that date do not lose their validity. (Dan Honemann, disguised as Scorpion)

It's never a good idea to mess around with the Scorpion.

I (Dan Honemann, disguised as Scorpion because posting from my office computer) am quite sure that there is nothing in RONR which indicates that votes may be taken by e-mail if the bylaws authorize voting by postal mail. Any kind of absentee voting, in order to be valid, must be expressly authorized by the bylaws (RONR, 11th ed., p. 423, ll. 17-25). Guest Unknown may have in mind what is said on page 89 relating to providing notice of meetings by e-mail, but this has nothing to do with voting. But even if voting by e-mail is expressly authorized by this club's bylaws, this does not m

I (Dan Honemann, posting from my office and hence disguised as Scorpion) agree. Under the circumstances described, a motion to go out of executive session can simply be treated as a motion to rescind the unexecuted part of the order previously adopted, even although not framed as such.

Yes.

I agree with Mr. Mervosh, and would note that, if a motion is made to elect a sole nominee by acclamation, the chair should rule that the motion is not in order. When there is only one nominee, the chair, after ensuring that no members present wish to make any further nominations, will simply declare the sole nominee elected rather than take a voice vote on whether or not to elect him. (RONR, 11th ed., p. 443, ll. 7-12) As an alternative to making another nomination, a member might move that the election be by ballot. If such a motion is adopted (majority vote required), then a bal

And when apruitt89 says that "We are a 501c3 public charity", one wonders who "We" are if "We" are not the members.

A practice followed as a matter of established custom may be treated practically as if it were prescribed by a rule, but it is, nevertheless, not a formally adopted rule. As a consequence, a rule conflicting with a custom such as the one you have described can be adopted by a majority vote, and if adopted will then take precedence over the previously established custom. Motions to Rescind are applicable to rules (or whatever) made or created by the adoption of one or more main motions. (RONR, 11th ed., p. 305, ll. 28-31).

I've no idea where you get this idea from, but it certainly is not from the current edition of RONR (or any other edition that I'm aware of).

Yes. I thought I had made that clear when I said: "In my opinion, whenever a rule requires that a vote be counted (such as a rule requiring a ballot vote), the reporting of that count is an essential element of such a vote, and an integral part of the chair's announcement of the result of such a vote." A rule requiring a roll-call vote is certainly a rule requiring that the vote be counted. And by the way, you can tell I'm in my office because my computer here always logs me in as Scorpion. Sorry about that.

It's quite possible. Play around with the numbers for awhile, and you'll see.

This is a rather confusing response. If a proposed amendment to a motion to adopt the recommendation from the council is germane, it must necessarily be "within the scope of the purpose of the called special meeting", as you put it.

It is difficult to understand how a proposed amendment to the bylaws can exceed the scope of the bylaws' subject matter.

When you say "We have recently formed a new committee ... ", who are "We"? Are "We" an organization or just a group of people?

Doesn't what is said on page 264 indicate that these are basic rights of individual members?

Just like that, huh?

Give it a rest, Norm.

Or it may be that the city council is not a small board or committee.

Not much.

They always are when they are mine.

I agree, but if the secretary is going to do it, at least he ought to do it right.

Yes.