Joshua Katz

Does this mean, as Guest Zev suggests, that the votes were added, or that two separate votes were held? If the former, I agree with Guest Zev. If the latter, it seems clear to me (my opinion, which is not binding on your organization) that the quoted language does not require, or even envision, two votes on the same motion.

Well, as a general matter, bylaw interpretation is a matter for your organization to address, not outsiders like us. In this case, though, I'm puzzled as to what the alternatives are supposed to be. Here's one that's obviously wrong - it can't be the case that you must hold a vote by mail or electronic media. What if you have nothing to decide? You write: That sounds right, and I can't imagine what else it could mean. For that, you ask: I am not clear what this means. Votes may be held by mail or by email. Nothing in what you've quoted (one reason we don't do bylaw interpretation, among many, is that you can't do it effectively without knowing the full bylaws) suggests that you can't vote the old-fashioned way, i.e. at a meeting. Is that your question, whether this provision prevents voting at a meeting? I would say it clearly does not, at least if RONR is your parliamentary authority. Voting at a meeting is the default - your bylaws may authorize other means, but unless your bylaws explicitly outlaw meetings, I don't see any argument to the contrary. (Well, I guess I can imagine one, but it's a bad argument.)

In RONR, a member may speak twice on a motion, and the maker has the right to speak first, but no particular right to speak last.

My guess is some manager used it to be mean he gets to unilaterally amend something, but that's just cynicism.

As was previously mentioned, a Google search turns up a procedure used in Congress. But the OP does not seem to be about a legislative body.

Belonged, although that's not terribly relevant here. I'll see if I can find a copy.

Why not simply buy a few copies of a cheat sheet, available from the NAP? It does not seem to me that creating these rules is analogous to standing - I don't think it is a step in the direction of conducting meetings properly. I think the way to take steps in that direction is simply to choose things to worry about, and things not to worry about. For instance, worry about things that impact the rights of members, but let other things go. Then, once the group has mastered what you think is most important, start pressing on a few other things. If you want into a dinner party and people are eating steaks with their hands, it's not the time to explain which is the dessert spoon, but neither is it the time to create new rules of table manners.

Is the former parliamentarian/former chair offering any suggestion as to what it is?

I doubt it. The word does not appear, so far as I know, in RONR. Do you have some context?

Probably. I didn't pay much attention to the thread, I just saw your answer that it is a board action.

No, notice would be given by the board member who intends to make the motion, not by you. You can ask a board member to make that motion over lunch, or coffee, or whatever, but that isn't notice. The procedure for giving notice appears in RONR, but I don't have the book handy for a page reference.

Sure, they can do so individually, or the membership can adopt a motion requesting it. The motion to rescind or amend can be used to, well, rescind or amend something already adopted. That is, the board can just throw away the unexecuted portion of the motion, or it can change it. A majority with notice, 2/3 without notice, or a majority of the entire membership (of the board) voting in the affirmative.

Given that it is the board which has this power, it would do so at a board meeting, not a general membership meeting.

There is none. Some organizations, though, adopt agendas (most organizations holding conventions) which do differentiate motions as to their type - a time for consideration of bylaws, a time for elections, etc. These organizations sometimes set a time for "resolutions," by which they commonly mean statements about affairs external to the organization, as well as, well, anything not otherwise covered.

And therein lies my concern - while the process in RONR allows for suspension, we have here a process to be carried out by the board, not the membership. Can the board impose the preliminary disciplinary suspension? My immediate answer is no.

Membership includes the right to vote, so all members must be allowed to vote at special meetings, just like at regular meetings. However, to vote, one must be present. Your original question on that seemed to be whether disciplinary action may be taken at a special meeting when the person to be disciplined is not present - so long as that person knows about the meeting AND what is to be considered, i.e. disciplining him, then yes, the meeting may take such action as is permitted otherwise. One cannot prevent discipline by not showing up. Well, it does say the Board may adopt rules for this hearing, but would you think that denial of a member's right to vote would be included in this authorization? It seems to me that such a denial would need to be in the bylaws directly, not simply in rules authorized by the bylaws.

If there is nothing in your bylaws, it seems to me that the board cannot remove its own members.

What body is it that meets? If it is the membership, then the President cannot turn the meeting into a board meeting. If it's a board meeting, then unless your rules say otherwise, no one has a right to be present other than board members, and the board may decide who, if anyone, may attend other than board members - note that it is the board that may decide this, not the President.

Are you a member of the body meeting?

Well, I suppose you could ask them to stop, if it really bothers you. I'm not sure there's a parliamentary solution to your dilemma.

A board member may make motions during board meetings, yes. Non-board members may not. As to when, it depends on the motion. If you mean an original main motion, then only when no other business is pending and, if an agenda has been adopted, at the appropriate time on the agenda (or via a motion to suspend the rules). If not, then original main motions may be made at the appropriate times in the standard order of business - after a committee report if they arise from it, during new business if they are new business, etc. If you can clarify your question further, we might be able to be of further assistance.

Isn't previous question just as effective in this situation? I prefer to limit use of objection to consideration to cases where there's an issue with considering it because any answer will be bad.

Well, technically it can be - just amend the minutes while pending to remove it. It makes for an incomplete record, of course. If the motion to rescind and expunge from the minutes is itself rescinded, the original motion to do so would still appear in the minutes, as would the motion to rescind that action. At least, I would think. I've only used this motion once.

The board can carry out those disciplinary proceedings the bylaws say it can. So far as we're told, the bylaws don't say the board can suspend these rights. So either it requires a different disciplinary process, or it can't be done at all. Doubtful, but see the provisions specifying that the board has those powers given to it and no others. It would be difficult for RONR to specify all the things the board cannot do, since that is a very long list.

Agreed. As noted, my answer is based only on the information provided. The language in the bylaws could well make the remedies there exclusive; your point is well-taken.