Dan Honemann

Yes, I suppose it is conceivable that there might be circumstances under which this would be appropriate, but it would be highly unusual.

This is not at all a proper way to seek unanimous consent. A member may ask that something be agreed to by unanimous consent, but he should not move that it be agreed to by unanimous consent because such a motion would then need to be seconded and voted on.

I agree that a great deal more information is needed, and would add that, generally speaking, and unless some applicable bylaw or special rule of order provides otherwise, when a person has been declared to have been elected to an office, his election to that office must be regarded as being valid unless and until the body that held the election determines otherwise.

The answer to your original question is "no", no matter how many months actually intervene between your meetings. The "number of months intervention" question affects proper terminology and the vote required for adoption of the proposed agenda (regardless of whether or not it has been amended).

In view of the fact that there is more than a three month interval between regular meetings of your membership, there is no such thing as a "general order" or an item of "unfinished business" that can come over from a previous meeting.

Tell me more about your organization. How frequently does it meet?

No.

I agree, which is why, in one of my previous posts, I said that "... a major problem with all of this is that the correctness of the answers being provided depends upon a correct understanding of exactly what the bylaws say, and I have not read them." When I assumed, based upon what little has been posted as to what the bylaws provide, that the Vice-President to be elected at the AGM in 2020 will be elected to serve for only the remaining year of the previously elected Vice-President's two-year term, I was just playing the odds (and I'll still bet on it). 🙂

But this is not what I said. I said that the President and Secretary to be elected at the AGM in 2020 will each be elected to serve for a two-year term. It's the Vice-President to be elected at the AGM in 2020 who will be elected to serve for only the remaining year of the previously elected Vice-President's two-year term.

Since the bylaws apparently provide that the recently appointed Vice-President will serve only until the 2020 AGM, then, unless the bylaws provide otherwise, it seems to me that the Vice-President to be elected at the AGM in 2020 will be elected to serve for one year only, which is the remainder of the term of the Vice-President elected at the last AGM. The President and Secretary to be elected at the AGM in 2020 will each be elected to serve for a two-year term. This means that, following the 2020 AGM, all will be back to normal, as Guest Zev has pointed out. I should add that a major problem with all of this is that the correctness of the answers being provided depends upon a correct understanding of exactly what the bylaws say, and I have not read them. For example, I got a little nervous when reading that the "bylaws require that any directors who are appointed mid-year must stand for election at the next AGM", when we have been dealing with the mid-year appointment of a Vice-President and Secretary. 🙂

I'm not sure I understand why this "awkward position" may occur. At your AGM next spring you will be electing a new President and a new Secretary, each to serve for a two-year term. You will not be electing a new Treasurer, nor will you be electing a new Vice-President unless your bylaws provide that officers appointed by your Board to fill vacancies serve only until the next AGM. Ordinarily, the person just appointed to fill the vacancy in the office of Vice-President would have been appointed to serve for the remainder of his predecessor's two-year term (in this case, until your AGM in the spring of 2021).

Doesn't the paragraph that begins on line 23, page 577, answer this question for you?

No, a subordinate board may not set its own rules (see p. 486, ll. 13-19).

Instructions to "[revise] the... constitution to correct any typos and expand on any procedural actions that may be of importance" appears to me to fall far short of authorizing drafting of an amendment "clarifying the different classes of membership".

Yes; whenever an applicable statute conflicts with a rule in RONR, the statute takes precedence.

In your example, I'm quite sure you do not believe that the mere adoption of that budget you present, with nothing more, authorizes the Treasurer to grant a $6,000 scholarship to whomever he wishes, or a Community Grant (whatever that is) of $30,000 to whomever he wishes (and so forth and so on). What you have quoted from RONR, on page 461, means what it says.

I suppose the answer may depend upon just exactly how disruptive the member is. 🙂 "In the event of fire, riot, or other extreme emergency, if the chair believes taking time for a vote on adjourning would be dangerous to those present, he should declare the meeting adjourned—to a suitable time and place for an adjourned meeting (if he is able), or to meet at the call of the chair." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 86)

The answer to this question depends upon the exact nature of the motion involved. PS - "Bylaws" is one word.

Okay. 🙂

If a member makes a motion which requires a certain vote for its adoption, he should not be surprised that it will take that vote to adopt it.

Abiding by the rules is what makes common sense to me.

You say that what's actually going to happen is that "the member is going to move to rescind ...", when, if he fears he will not have the votes, what he should be doing is giving notice of intent to make this motion at the next monthly meeting. Nothing inefficient about that.

But this "wrapping around the axle" (as you describe it) is the foreseeable result of a member hastily making a motion to Rescind instead of simply giving notice of intent to make it at the next monthly meeting of this garden club. The rules are clear. If a member makes a motion to Rescind without having given previous notice of intent to do so, the vote required for adoption will be either (i) a two-thirds vote, or (ii) the vote of a majority of the entire membership. And what is it about "modern meetings" that make rules of parliamentary procedure appear less efficient then they did previously? Are you referring to something other than deliberative assemblies?

As defined in RONR (11th ed.), “previous notice” is an announcement that a motion “will be introduced” (p. 121, ll. 23-30). Once a motion has been made, it is no longer possible to give “previous notice” of an intention to make it (p. 306, ll. 26-27; p. 312, l. 5).

In my opinion, the answer to both questions is "no".