Joshua Katz

That's because it's common for threads to be moved from Advanced to Basic, and if there are any unread posts on a thead that is moved (i.e. any posts you haven't read), from that point on, the Advanced Forum will show up bold on the main page, as if it still had unread posts. You can eliminate that by clicking "mark site read."

I'm not sure what the two possibilities you envision look like, but here's the procedure for considering multiple unrelated amendments. First, the main motion is pending. An amendment is moved - debate is now on the amendment - and the amendment is either adopted or not. Now the question is on the main motion, and it's subject to any motions - including motions to amend (but not limited to - someone could move the previous question, for instance, before anyone gets a chance to move another amendment, and if 2/3 agree, then you move to a vote on the main motion). As long as someone who wants to amend gets the floor, he'll move to amend - debate is now on the motion to amend - and that amendment will either be adopted or not. Rinse and repeat as necessary. At some point, either no one will make any more motions, or you'll adopt the previous question, or time on the item will expire - and then you'll vote on the main motion. If you stop making motions before running out of time, you'll have time to actually debate the main motion.

Interesting. Well, then it is working correctly. Edited to add: Actually, it is not working correctly, I think. The button appears whether there is or is not a next unread post; if there isn't one and I click it, I get an error screen.

At least for me, the button at the bottom of the screen that says "Next unread post" no longer indicates the name of said post, and it used to.

Elect a secretary pro tem to complete the meeting. Then either the Secretary's notes can be combined with those of the pro tem, or, if the Secretary doesn't provide them, the pro tem, with help from others in attendance most likely, will need to do his best to produce minutes. If the Secretary doesn't show up to the next meeting, again, elect a secretary pro tem. Longer term, how you handle it will depend on how the Secretary behaves. Does the term of office for the Secretary include a phrase like "until their successors..."? If not, if you want to remove the Secretary, you'll need to use the disciplinary process, either one in your bylaws or, failing that, the one in Chapter XX.

In what way? A majority is more than half.

Sorry, just woke up.

Dr. Stackpole: it looks to me like the OP is talking about reversing this action at the same session. Why not use Reconsider?

Yes, but since the board can reschedule but not cancel the rescheduled meeting, I would think they should have done as you say, not on the date in the bylaws, but on the date the board originally set. By any chance, OP, is the board unpopular, and is there an "until successors" clause in the term of office? I've seen a game like that before.

It seems to me (admittedly, dangerous territory) that the board can, in fact, move that meeting up. What it can't do, as far as I can tell, is move it "unreasonably," cancel it after rescheduling it, or, as it appears to be attempting, kick the can down the road forever.

It wouldn't be surprising if it's the "consensus" organization discussed in the Advanced Forum. Just sayin'.

Then how does the "a board member will decide" thing work? It seems like, at a board meeting, it's always going to just mean a vote of the board members - i.e. a normal democratic process. Whether they meet together or not, it appears clear to me that a lot of council decision-making is going to wind up in the hands of any board member who happens to be present - or reached by electronic means. (And how does the chair decide which board member to "bring in" by electronic means? One he suspects will agree with him?)

I would suppose a recess would be something that has to be decided on the spot, so a board member gets to decide. This is just a way to tie the membership up in knots and let the board control everything.

This is amusing to me. In general, groups reject RONR (and democratic principles) in favor of consensus by arguing that it's better if everyone gets along (snapping of fingers is usually involved). But it ultimately comes down to something like this - a naked grab/grant of power to authority. I mean, play it out. Any one member can prevent consensus from being reached. Suppose the group wants to do X, but one member, plus a board member in attendance, prefer Y. You're doing Y.

Presumably, while the "because" is misplaced, the OP meant that 2/3 will suffice, and that a majority of the entire membership is not required (unless, of course, the membership is small enough that the latter is easier to attain).

This is not a method of resolving parliamentary disputes, though. If they proceed, you can raise a point of order at the next meeting that the purported "election" was held by the wrong body and therefore is meaningless.

Okay, so a general meeting. Does your membership elect your board per your bylaws? If so, I can imagine no reason that, even if email ballots were allowed, only the board would be voting now. Well, there you go. I see no reason, then, why the board should be voting on this now.

Then it can't conduct business. Was it a board meeting or membership meeting? Hmm? The excerpts provided do not say when the elections meeting is to be held. Do your bylaws say anything about that? One of these two things is irrelevant, but I don't know which until I know if it was a board or membership meeting. Two things: do your bylaws allow for email voting (by the board or otherwise?)? Also, who is supposed to elect your board? The excerpts provided do not say. No, they are different things. They are alike only in that both are prohibited under RONR unless your rules say otherwise.

Yes, that is my interpretation, but I see no point in belaboring it any further since we all seem to agree on what should happen anyway, as you say: It's not my position that we need to call it filling the Vice Presidency and then filling the Vice Presidency again. I have no objection to saying "we'll now elect a new President;" I just suspect that the mechanics are better described the way I describe them when being technical. I do object, though, to the board filling any vacancies if not empowered to do so, either explicitly or, as you note, through a more general grant of power.

I don't think that matters, to be honest. But I'm not sure that the board has the power to fill the vacancies based on what we've been told. This, of course, is equivalent to filling the VP position twice - you might as well call the first person selected as VP the "President" because they're going to hold that position as soon as they assume office anyway. There's no difference. If everyone knows that the first person elected as VP is actually going to be President, you are filling the President position first.

It sounds to me like it was not. Do you conduct business at them? If so, they sound like special meetings. The presence or absence of non-members is irrelevant (unless your bylaws or a relevant law say something about it), but if your bylaws do not authorize special meetings, then they're not appropriate. This, as a result, is a question of interpreting bylaws and applicable laws, not something we can answer out of RONR.

Then the President can participate. Well, that vacancy should have been filled when it occurred, but if it wasn't, the proper move is still to fill the VP vacancy, the person you fill it with becomes President, then you fill the VP vacancy again. If the bylaws are silent, then vacancies are filled by the body that originally selected the officer. Was that the board? If not, then the board had no such authority.

Do the bylaws give the board this authority? Do you not have a Vice President? The VP automatically becomes President if you do have one, and the vacancy is in the VP position. Assuming the board has such authority, and assuming there is no VP, then yes. I'm not sure exactly what you're asking here, but if the concern is the President voting, then (assuming the new President was presiding) she has the right to vote, but is expected not to exercise it unless her vote would impact the outcome - but that's only true if you're not using small board rules. Are you? It's also possible I've misunderstood what you're asking here.

Well, we don't know how the chair will rule (although we can guess that the point of order will be ruled not well-taken, but we don't know for sure). If it's ruled not well-taken, certainly it can be appealed. If it's ruled well-taken, my personal opinion would be that an appeal would be dilatory because there is no room for an alternative opinion to the fact that the only officers are those listed in the bylaws. However, I don't say that with any confidence, because I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to allowing appeals, and because I haven't read the bylaws in their entirety (and don't intend to). In any case, whether an appeal is in order or not, the reason has nothing to do with the fact that it's a bylaws question.

If your bylaws are silent, the vacancy should be filled by whatever body made the initial selection, which I'm guessing from your question is the membership.