Dan Honemann

Why not look at pages 444-446. They're not all that hard to digest.

Yes, if a motion to accept an officer's resignation is adopted, it is too late to make a request to withdraw that motion which has been adopted. However, if the resignation which has thus been accepted does not become effective until some future time, nothing in RONR prevents the officer from making a new and different request, this time a request that he be permitted to withdraw his resignation which has previously been accepted, and nothing in RONR prevents the assembly from allowing him to do so.

I wonder where this idea comes from.

Yes, I think this is correct.

The board cannot unilaterally rescind its acceptance of a resignation, but it can agree to an officer's request for permission to withdraw his resignation if he makes such a request before his resignation has become effective. This may be done by unanimous consent, or by the adoption (by majority vote) of an incidental main motion to permit withdrawal of the resignation.

No one has said anything about withdrawing an adopted motion. If the officer asks for permission to withdraw his resignation, the board may permit him to do so.

I don't see any reason why the board could not agree to the officer's request to rescind (withdraw) his resignation.

Well, if there are any constitutional rights being violated here we will have to start talking in terms of penumbras, formed by emanations from guarantees in the constitution that help give them life and substance.

Help me out here. Where do you find "limitations on campaigning" that might "violate the first amendment rights of the candidates"?

Baloney.

I'm referring to the adoption of the motion to accept the proffered resignation.

RONR (11th ed., p. 308) makes it very clear that motions to Rescind and to Amend Something Previously Adopted are not in order when a resignation has been acted upon.

I don't know why not.

No, the rule which provides that when a count has been ordered the number of votes on each side should be entered in the minutes should not be regarded as applying to votes on motions which would not otherwise be recorded in the minutes. The detailed results of a ballot vote, or a roll-call vote, however, are always entered in the minutes.

You won't find language in RONR that indicates a person becomes a member when his membership dues are paid. A person becomes a member when the bylaws say he becomes a member.

Such members have no duty to vote on proposed corrections to the minutes, just a right to do so. You don't challenge opinions expressed by the chair. You can appeal from the chair's rulings.

Fear not, the cavalry is riding to the rescue.

I have said in the past that a motion which authorizes the signing of a contract cannot be rescinded after the contract has been signed. In such a case, a motion to rescind or amend the executed contract is not a motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted. However, if the adoption of a motion in and of itself creates a contract, there certainly can be a motion to rescind, or attempt to modify in some fashion, the contract which has been entered into as a result of the adoption of that motion. Such a motion may be rescinded or amended so long as the contract which it creates has not been fully carried out. An association can decide to violate a contract just as you or I may decide to do so. The rules of parliamentary procedure are concerned with how a deliberative assembly arrives at a decision, and not with the wisdom (or even the legality) of the decision itself.

Well, it does seem as if there was some confusion with respect to the manner in which members were to vote "no" with respect to any candidate, but since members were instructed to add another place for "no" votes, I would not regard the chair's failure to advise members that they could abstain, or implying that an abstention was equivalent to a "no" vote if it was not, as being fatal errors. As to this latter point, if the vote required for admittance to membership was a vote of two-thirds of the members present, then an abstention would have the same effect as a "no" vote. If the vote required was simply an unqualified two-thirds vote, then an abstention would have no effect at all, and the number of members present would be irrelevant.

Mr. Johnson, Mrs. Smith, Mr. Gordon, and others are members referred to in the sample minutes in RONR, and in each case is obviously sufficient so long as there is not more than one member with that name. Nothing in RONR requires that the names of all members in attendance at a meeting be listed in the minutes.

I'm afraid that these "discrepancies" are described in so vague a fashion as to make it impossible to provide a meaningful answer. The odds are that the answer to your question is "no", but greater detail (especially with respect to 1,2,and 3) might prove helpful.

Which seems rather drastic.

Can you explain what you mean by a motion which "makes a change of direction from a previous vote"?

Probably so. The actions which cannot be rescinded are listed on page 308 of RONR (11th ed.).

But simply notifying the other party that his proposal has been accepted, even if it creates a binding contract, does not mean that a motion to rescind or amend the acceptance of the proposal will be out of order (although a motion to Reconsider will be out of order). As a matter of parliamentary law, a contract which has been entered into can be rescinded or amended so long as, and to the extent that, it has not already been fully carried out. As noted, such rescission or amendment may have adverse legal consequences, since it may constitute a breach of contract, but that is a separate and distinct question of law to be dealt with by a lawyer, not a parliamentarian.