Dan Honemann

There is no such thing as a motion "to kill the vote." However, when the motion to adopt the proposed amendment is pending before the membership's assembly, a motion can be made to postpone it indefinitely. Adoption of this motion by majority vote effectively kills the proposed amendment.

I’m afraid that the answer to your question will depend upon the exact wording of the provisions in your bylaws constitution concerning their its amendment.

Mr. Brown, I was simply noting that no member can properly move "that a certain member serve as chair pro tem by unanimous consent without objection", as you suggested.

I don't think you really meant to say this in exactly this way. 🙂

"A society has no executive board, nor can its officers act as a board, except as the bylaws may provide; and when so established, the board has only such power as is delegated to it by the bylaws or by vote of the society's assembly referring individual matters to it." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 482) What, exactly, do your bylaws provide with respect to the existence and composition of your organization's board?

Huh?

Well I, for one, have often found that attempting to construe the provisions of bylaws, which I have not read, of an organization that I know nothing about, to be rather risky.

I'm afraid I left out an "s". I meant to say "... as a matter of facts .... " 🙂

Is it too late to point out that, as a matter of fact, you guys don't know what you're talking about? 🙂

I think you are absolutely right, but I also find that this situation occurs most often in organizations in which the board does in fact have complete control over the affairs of the organization and about the only thing that the full membership can do is elect board members at its annual meeting. Although the annual meeting of the full membership is just that, and not a meeting of the board, the board just can't get over the idea that they are supposed to run everything. 🙂

So what am I, a potted plant? 🙂

And be particularly careful of d discipline. It's the worst kind.

But as has been noted, what is said on page 255 does not support Mr. Brown's statement that "[a] motion, for example, should not be ruled out of order unless found to be out of order by a majority vote." Just the opposite is true if the question is put to the assembly in the form in which RONR says it should be put on page 255, lines 10-15.

Sustains his position as to what?

If there is no applicable rule somewhere requiring something other than a majority vote, then a majority vote is the vote required for approval (RONR, 11th ed., p. 400, ll. 5-7).

Well, I'm afraid that what is said on page 255 does not appear to support Mr. Brown's statement that "[a] motion, for example, should not be ruled out of order unless found to be out of order by a majority vote."

No.

Maybe their bylaws provide for cumulative voting.

Not in my opinion.

Yes, and that is the reason why that wording was revised in the 11th edition. It is too easy to misconstrue. 🙂

No, Robert's Rules states that it would be "... more than half of the votes cast by persons entitled to vote, excluding blanks or abstentions ..." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 400, emphasis supplied).

The right book, maybe? Nothing on page 76 of RONR, 11th ed., says anything of the sort. The closest thing I can find to what you have quoted is this sentence relating to the motion to Reconsider which is found on page 78, lines 30-33, but it is substantially different from the one that you quoted: "It is the only one of the four motions in this class that can be applied to a secondary motion alone—that is, without also being applied to a related main motion."

Who are "we"?

I respectfully disagree. The executive committee did take an "action" when it decided not to do what the motion proposed be done. There is nothing to rescind, however, because nothing having continuing force and effect was created by the adoption of one or more main motions.

It seems to me that the citation I provided is sufficient (in other words, I don't know of any other).