Josh Martin

I do not think such a suspension is in order. It appears to me to violate the fundamental principle of parliamentary law that only one question is immediately pending at a time. The problems which Mr. Katz illustrated show why this rule exists. I also concur with Mr. Goldsworthy that this attempt is unwise. If this is a competition, and you are required to process a main motion, a primary amendment, and a secondary amendment, then I am certain that the judges want to see your team actually process each of those motions.

I disagree strongly. While I do not dispute that there are some issues "too small to raise a ruckus," the fact that no other member raises the issue is not, in and of itself, an indication that this is the case. The issue may not have been raised because other members are unaware of the rule, or do not know the proper procedure for challenging a ruling of the chair. It is not clear that no one challenged the ruling because no one cared to do so. As to the "supported by a majority" comment, it will not necessarily be immediately clear which side the majority will support. Additionally, the chair's ruling becomes a part of the minutes and the society's precedents, so I would argue that there is a penalty to allowing an erroneous ruling to go unchallenged (not to mention any immediate effects of the ruling, such as suppressing a proper motion, or adjourning a meeting when it is not clear the majority supports doing so). I would assume that the member who made the motion to Reconsider, at the very least, cared about reconsideration.

I would say that all members of an assembly "have an ethical duty to ensure that the rules are followed even if the correction would run counter to their interests." I don't think being "learned in parliamentary law" imposes any additional duties in this regard, although it may mean the member is more able to carry out this duty. You should move to Appeal from the decision of the chair. The chair has already made a ruling, so Appeal is the appropriate motion in this case, not Point of Order. Assuming that this is not one of the situations where the chair can declare a meeting adjourned on his own (and it does not seem to be), you should raise a Point of Order. I would note that in addition to an ethical duty to other members, allowing the chair to set bad precedents may not be in your best interest in the long term.

If a member wishes to make a motion regarding a timeline for the board to complete this matter, or otherwise provide instructions to the board regarding this issue, then he is free to do so.

Nominations are debatable.

There's no time limit unless the motion specified one. Additionally, the part of the motion which "tabled" discussion of this issue was most likely not in order.

There is no parliamentary requirement to specify any dollar amount at all in a motion to spend money on a project, although it is probably a good idea. If the board wishes to give the officers responsible for carrying out the motion a blank check, it is free to do so.

No, I don't think it is appropriate for the chair to admonish a board member during a meeting on the basis of past misbehavior or to warn against potential future misbehavior. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 644-648 for the appropriate procedures to use if and when the board member becomes unruly again.

It is up to your organization to interpret its own bylaws.

Thank you. Based on these facts, it would seem to me that the voting council may amend the bylaws again to change the qualifications (assuming there is enough time to do this), but the council may not leave the bylaws as is and simply allow this person to run in violation of the bylaws. Additionally, it seems this decision is up to the voting council, not the board.

Based on these facts, it seems to me the motion was not adopted. A member should have raised a Point of Order regarding the chair's failure to declare the motion adopted, followed by an Appeal if necessary, but this did not happen. I concur with Mr. Honemann that it is not unusual for a slightly different number of votes to be cast for each office. Nonetheless, if the membership wishes to change the procedure by which votes are counted and reported, it should amend the society's rules on this subject. Perhaps he did, but if so, the President should have ruled the motion out of order rather than muttering about talking to a parliamentarian.

There is nothing which requires the use of titles or first and last names (and certainly nothing which requires the use of all of these together). Based on the sample minutes in RONR, the suggested practice seems to be to use the last name alone (Mr. Smith) or the title alone (the Treasurer). The latter is generally used when the individual is acting in the capacity of their office, as opposed to exercising their rights as an individual member.

Did the chair declare the motion adopted? This is a very broad question. Could you clarify the nature of your concern? What about the current arrangement undermines your confidence in an "honest elections vote result?" I am not as certain. So far as RONR is concerned, a motion is not adopted until the chair declares it adopted. The facts presented so far leaves some doubt as to whether this occurred. Perhaps, but the presiding officer does appoint the tellers. If this is the issue which concerns the OP, then the recourse would be to suspend the rules to provide another method for selecting the tellers, or to suspend the rules to remove the President from the chair and elect a Chairman Pro Tempore to preside.

The minutes should use the more formal "Mr. Smith" regardless of whether full names and titles are listed at the beginning of the minutes.

Based upon all of the facts which have been provided, I think that the motion to postpone indefinitely, or postpone, or refer, or whatever, was not in order, because the motion was not related to a motion which was actually under the control of the assembly. Instead, it was related to a motion which, per your bylaws, must be sent to the full membership for a vote by mail, and proper notice of this motion was given. Even if the motion had been in order, it appears that no vote was taken on the motion, and therefore it was not adopted. So it seems to me that the board can and should "send out the motion with the vote on the budget."

Based on the facts provided, it still appears that the assembly validly adopted a new house rule. The Commander is mistaken, however, that "there is no debate on this and no you can not change the vote results." A motion to Rescind or to Amend Something Previously Adopted is in order. Such a motion is debatable and requires a 2/3 vote, a vote of a majority of the entire membership, or a majority vote with previous notice.

I don't think I have enough facts to answer these questions. What was the motion? What was the basis for the chair's ruling? Also, did the chair declare the motion adopted? What your bylaws say about the board's authority could also be helpful.

Actually, you are both wrong. Neither the corrections made before the meeting nor the corrections made at the meeting need to be identified. See the first paragraph of FAQ #16. They are not "the minutes" until approved by the assembly.

Unless the meeting was held in executive session, no rule in RONR would prohibit it.

An individual member of the organization does not have a right to minutes of the board. The membership may order the minutes of a particular board meeting to be read at a meeting of the membership, either by a 2/3 vote, a majority vote with notice, or a vote of the entire membership. I presume that a motion to order that copies be made available would require the same vote.

Let's back up a bit. You say that "Our voting council made changes to qualifications to run for board positions." Do your bylaws actually give the "voting council" the authority to do this? In the ordinary case, qualifications for office are specified in the bylaws, and they may only be changed by amending the bylaws. You later say that "the Board wants to tell the council to let this person run." Does the board have the authority to give these instructions? Is the "voting council" a committee of the board?

What do you mean by "special resolution?" The term "special resolution" is not found in RONR. If there can be no voting at the meeting (except for a handful of items), what happened when the member made his motion to postpone - and what was the exact wording of that motion? It's not entirely clear whether it was a motion to postpone indefinitely or a motion to refer.

I'm not sure there is an issue even if there is a ballot vote. The fact that a motion is made by the member's spouse, in and of itself, does not constitute a "personal or pecuniary interest not in common with other members."

Your bylaws should specify how much notice is required for special meetings.

What are these "inspectors of election?" The term does not appear in RONR.