Joshua Katz

It seems to me that a motion to suspend the rules and immediately adopt X presents one question, whose resolution might achieve two things. It is similar to a compound motion. The difference is in the logical structure - here, the first thing is necessary but not sufficient for the second thing to be done. Note that the assembly is not free, absent a motion to amend, to adopt the suspension but reject X.

Yes, thank you. That is not a special rule of order; it's a situation permitted by RONR itself, so while it disproves "you cannot have two immediately pending main motions," it does not disprove the claim that I've never seen a special rule of order to that effect.

Yes, although with the limitation that, at a special meeting, motions are not in order if they are not within the purpose for which the meeting was called. So long as the motion is otherwise in order, assuming the agenda has been adopted, a member may move to amend the agenda by a 2/3 vote or a majority vote of the entire membership to include the item. Or the rules may be suspended to permit taking it up. Or it may be moved when agenda items have been completed and the meeting has not yet adjourned. But that's just RONR. There may be other applicable rules, depending on the organization and its nature. For instance, there may be open meeting laws that may bear on this question.

I don't believe RONR explicitly says this. I doubt the authorship team would have expected anyone to think a chair can evade the purpose of a special meeting via this trickery. It amounts not letting members call a special meeting. Which is fine; an organization is free to do that. But if it says members can call a meeting, then presumably they should be able to do so. That's not a RONR matter, though.

I have never seen a special rule to the effect that two main motions may be pending at the same time.

I don't understand what happened. You had a motion to do two things, so how were there different votes? It sounds like you may have had two main motions at the same time, which violates a fundamental principle of parliamentary procedure.

I would read your rules as requiring the meeting to be called for the purpose stated. Although they don't say as much, they allow for 1/3 of the members to cause there to be a special meeting. And a special meeting is characterized by its purpose and may only conduct business specified in the call. So if they call a meeting to "discuss events" you won't be able to conduct business relating to office furniture, so you haven't gotten the special meeting you asked for. I guess that answer is more of a "that would be absurd" than anything else, though. But it would be absurd for them to be permitted to change the purpose. It seems to me, though, that those who want to call the meeting should not call it to "discuss purchasing office furniture" but rather to conduct business regarding office furniture. A special meeting called only to discuss something will be unable to conduct business, in my opinion.

You would raise a point of order. Note that the burden is on you to show by clear and convincing evidence that a quorum was not present. Also note that the claimed conflict of interest would not, per RONR, be a reason to invalidate the action - one with a conflict should not vote, but cannot be compelled not to.

I don't think you will. First of all, RONR assigns little importance to whether a vote is unanimous or not. In fact, the only time is comes up is unanimous consent, and if a unanimous consent request fails, nothing is lost. Second, if more people respond to the call for ayes than for nayes, but someone responds to the call for nayes, it's not unanimous, and nothing in RONR says it is. You might ask the person so claiming for a citation.

That, and that by definition a write-in is not a nominee.

I don't know where presidents like this think they get the power to set the terms on which boards may deliberate.

Thank you for joining!

No, just the maker. The name of the seconder need not be included.

No. The board chair should be presiding.

The resignation must be accepted before he's out of office, yes. Whether the board or the membership accepts it depends on who has the authority to replace him. And if he's withdrawn the resignation without it having been accepted (unclear from what we're told) then it may no longer be accepted. If his resignation was never accepted, he would not be coming back, simply remaining.

Well, yes, RONR addresses the content of minutes, but state law will take priority over what it says. It seems unlikely that state law requires the inclusion of a statute in the minutes, but whether it does is beyond the scope of advice we can give. So far as RONR is concerned, the minutes should include only what was done, not what was said (so certainly not what non-members say), and not random statutes. But again, state procedural law will win out.

So far as RONR is concerned, past practice (or "custom" as it is called in the book) falls to the floor when a point of order is raised. That is, it has no value when in conflict with, in this case, a bylaw. That may be unfair to the next person who seeks this treatment, but the solution is to amend the bylaws.

This strikes me as irrelevant. The reason these documents are put in the same book (in some organizations) but not the parliamentary authority is that the parliamentary authority is already a book, and is very long. I think this is unrelated to the hierarchy of rules.

Although not quite the same, you might consider the analogy to a board that oversees employees. No board member may give instructions to those employees (unless the bylaws say otherwise), but the board itself directs them through motions.

Union meetings are frequently bound by laws and rules quite unlike RONR, and look very different from RONR meetings. So I'm not sure how much help we can give you here. If it is the case that the president is "meeting" with management, then anyone not a member of the body that is meeting would have no right to participate. But you also mention that you'd like to make informed motions, so perhaps it is not the case that the rank and file are not members. Can you explain a bit more how this all happens, procedurally? When would you be making motions? Before or after the meeting with management?

The body elects a secretary pro tem. The chair is responsible for establishing quorum, as usual. RONR does not require a roll call to establish quorum. Be sure you are following your rules in filling the vacancy. Does the body that is meeting have the authority to fill it? Has notice been given?

SOP doesn't matter. If your bylaws do not authorize email voting, you may not vote by email.

Well, what would be the argument that they can?

No. Points of order are raised at meetings. Emails do not need to go into the minutes. More to the point, it sounds like this is email is an objection to draft minutes. Draft minutes are, in essence, the Secretary's notes, until they are approved as minutes. An objection to what is in the Secretary's notes should be given as much credence as the Secretary wishes to give it (i.e. the Sectretary can make the change, or not) but it is not a point of order. If the point of order is made at the meeting, the Secretary still need not address it - the chair will address it. I'm not sure which you are. You don't say which side of the "add the absentions but do not identify them" suggestion you disagree with, but certainly abstentions need not be identified absent a roll-call vote.

Only if your rules say they are. RONR prohibits the practice, unless your bylaws authorize it.