Dan Honemann

Yes, 50:12 applies, but there would seem to be no reason to assume that these non-members of the board were not properly appointed to serve as members of this committee, in which event I agree with Mr. Martin. There is no reason to believe that they cannot vote during meetings of this committee.

I think it would be helpful if you would quote exactly what your bylaws say in this connection.

"Mr. Smith moved 'that [blah, blah, blah]', which motion, after debate, was not agreed to. A motion to reconsider the vote on this motion was adopted, and upon reconsideration the motion was again rejected."

Well, I understood you to be saying that it is not in order to direct an officer to perform a duty which the bylaws place him under no obligation to perform. I think this is correct, and a motion directing him to do such a thing would be out of order at any meeting, regular or special. Apparently, I misunderstood what you were saying. A while back, I made reference to "a motion directing the secretary to publish a draft of the minutes within a certain period of time". Although I think such a motion might well be one arising in connection with the transaction of business at a special meeting, it may not be in order for the reason stated above. If so, it could instead be a motion requesting the secretary to publish a draft of the minutes within a certain period of time.

Not generally, I wouldn't think.

Yes, it is.

I gather that you would be making this same argument if this were all happening at a regular meeting rather than a special meeting. Have I got this right?

Or how about: "Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to correction of the misspelling of Mr. Merritt's name in the minutes of the meeting held on January 15, 2024."

So the members will have a chance to make their hotel reservations before the anticipated increase in price.

A motion made at a special meeting is in order if it deals with some matter that has arisen "in connection with the transaction of" business specified in the call of the meeting. I suppose it would not be too difficult to conjure up a factual situation in which it is determined, during debate on some question directly related to business specified in the call, that it would be highly advisable to have the decisions arrived at during the meeting conveyed to the membership at large as soon as is feasible. Under these circumstances, I think a motion directing the secretary to publish a draft of the minutes within a certain period of time would be a motion dealing with an issue that has arisen in connection with the transaction of business specified in the call of the meeting.

Since you've already voted on the motion, I've no idea what your President has in mind.

Speaker Reed's ruling didn't concern the number of members needed to constitute a quorum (a majority). Instead, it concerned the method of counting the number of members present to determine if a quorum was present, and certainly was a big deal at the time. Caused a ruckus that continued for days.

"Section 2: The candidates shall be elected by voice vote. If there is more than one person nominated for office, there will be a written (ballot) vote. In the event of a tie, another written (ballot) vote will be taken." This is a rather interesting provision. What it means to me is that (a), if there is only one nominee for an office that nominee should be declared elected by acclamation, and (b), if there is more than one nominee for an office, a ballot vote must be taken to determine who will be elected. On no occasion will a voice vote actually be taken.

Perhaps you should have asked the person or persons conducting these meetings.

Is the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order your parliamentary authority? If so, take a look at 23:7 and see if it doesn't answer your question.

As I said in my previous response, much depends upon exactly what the bylaws say when they require that the election be held by voice vote. For example, if they say something such as "These elections shall be held by voice vote", without anything more, then what is said in 46:40 concerning election by acclamation is fully applicable. No suspension of the rules is needed, since the rules are being complied with.

Unless your bylaws or a special rule of order specifically prohibit nominations from the floor at your April meeting at which the election will take place, the chair must call for further nominations at this meeting (RONR, 12th ed., 46:6). If there are no further nominations, it may well be that, in instances where there is only one nominee for an office, the chair should simply declare that the nominee is elected, thus effecting the election by unanimous consent or “acclamation” (RONR, 12th ed., 46:40). Whether this is or is not the case depends upon exactly what your bylaws say when they require that the election be held by voice vote. It is precisely in instances where a voice vote is called for that this sort of declaration by the chair is to be made.

Are you referring to a single person here or to several? These days it seems we have to guess.

What's there not to get. It seems rather clear that the guy "identifying himself as 'very experienced' with RONR" knew what he was talking about.

If you say so, but I do wish that people would stop messing around with our pronouns.

It didn't and still doesn't look like this to me, but never mind. What concerns me is Anthony's informing us that his bylaws authorize Committee members to act on behalf of the board "in matters that require expediency, but must be held accountable to the Board for his actions". Does this indicate that there is now a move afoot to insist that singular pronouns be substituted for plural pronouns?

I agree that 12:22(2) is inapplicable, but it seems to me that if the motion that was pending was, in essence, a motion to rescind the county bylaws, the motion to amend this motion by substituting for it a motion to amend the county bylaws was in order (see 35:2(6)).

I think the facts as stated are way too muddy. I can understand that the bylaws may provide for an executive committee with authority to act for the board, but here we are told that the Chair unilaterally accepted resignations, and are provided with a snippet from the bylaws apparently referring to this committee's authority but ending with "but must be held accountable to the Board for his actions". Clearly we need to see what these bylaws actually provide in this connection, since the facts get even muddier: Apparently the "they" who took this email vote were members of the board, but I can't tell if this vote was taken before or after the in-person meeting that was held on January 25. Where were these three members who we are now told were "removed" by the Chair and Secretary (not just the Chair) when this in-person meeting was held? Were they notified of this meeting? What "decision" of the Chair is being referred to here" Mr. Katz seems to think it was a ruling by the chair which would have been appealable, but I see no indication that this is so.

Now I must note that the motion to declare a rule null and void does not have to use the word "rule", and that a motion that a rule "be declared" null and void will certainly suffice. I think you may be under the mistaken belief that such a motion is raising a point of order as an incidental main motion. Technically speaking, there is no such thing as an incidental main motion corresponding to a point of order, but we'll save this lesson for another day.

Okay, I certainly won't quibble about the exact language of the motion to be made to declare a rule null and void because I see no real point in doing so.