Dan Honemann

As best I can determine, there was no violation of decorum worth complaining about.

I think you are going to have to tell the folks here exactly what rule was broken and the manner in which (how) it was broken in order to get any sort of helpful response.

The second footnote on page 488 simply recognizes the fact that it is rather awkward for the chairman of a small board to formally make a motion in the manner described on pages 33-35 (even although he has the right to do so), and then state the question on his own motion in order to place it before the assembly. The footnote recognizes that what generally happens, as a practical matter, is that the chairman, during informal discussion, suggests that something be done, and then, depending upon what occurs during the ensuing discussion, puts the question on his own proposal. This is the common sense approach noted by General Robert at the bottom of page 265 in PL.

I think the next two sentences provide a sufficient explanation.

I guess you guys will just have to learn to get it right the first time. 🙂

But take a look at the second footnote on page 488.

I agree that an organization is free to adopt by special rule of order any order of business it wants, even one which includes a consent calendar which specifically includes approval of the minutes of the previous meeting, but I also agree that it's a dumb idea.

Assuming that a member needs to be present at the time when a vote is taken in order to abstain (which I believe to be the case), it would appear that these bylaws require the vote of a majority (or two-thirds, or whatever) of the members present for adoption of motions. Not exactly unheard of.

It's called "unfinished business" in RONR. As noted in the footnote on page 358, "The expression 'old business' should be avoided, since it may incorrectly suggest the further consideration of matters that have been finally disposed of."

Huh? 🙂

I doubt that this is said anywhere in RONR, but why do you ask?

I'm quite certain that my friend Bill Evans never opined that an organization's membership and its board could conduct business at the same time and in the same place in the manner contemplated here.

But who is or who is not the supreme authority has nothing to do with this. The fact remains that two different entities cannot conduct business at the same time in the same place.

Not in so many words, no. But it does appear to be rather obvious that two different entities cannot conduct business at the same time in the same place.

Nosey's resurrection of this old thread is welcome only because it gives us a chance to read this once again.

Mr. Martin has it right. A recount of the votes taken by a counted rising vote can be ordered only if written records such as tellers' tally sheets were prepared in counting the votes, and these records have been retained.

Perhaps it would be best if you could explain what it is in your rules which deals with distribution of an "agenda" a week before a meeting.

Use correct numbering.

Certainly not in this form.

Take a look at No. 6 on tinted page 30, RONR (11th ed.).

Although I agree that the use of provisos is not limited to motions to amend bylaws, I think the answer to your next two questions is no. As in the case of a motion to Adjourn, I would think a motion to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn will lose its privileged status if qualified in any way, and hence will be out of order if made while another motion is pending. I can find no basis for concluding that, if an adjourned meeting has been properly scheduled, it is automatically cancelled if the meeting at which it was scheduled adjourns at a time when it appears that there is no further business to conduct. For all I know, maybe there is some reason to believe that minutes should be approved before the next regular meeting. Or whatever. In any event, the assembly apparently thought that the decision to hold the adjourned meeting should not be reversed.

I'd tread carefully if I were you. I remember this gentleman (Mr. Elsman) from back in the olden days, and he ain't no slouch.

Always a breath of fresh air here on this forum.

Right. We just won't take his word for it if he claims he voted on the losing side.

The simple fact of the matter is that a presiding officer ought to look like a presiding officer. Maintaining an appearance of being in control of the proceedings helps to ensure that he will be.