Joshua Katz

Fair point. I had assumed the chair declared it adopted, and then said "hmm, I don't know about this whole motion-thing, I'd better ask a parliamentarian."

Then since the president didn't give a clear ruling, I'd treat it as in effect. The board can rescind the motion only if your bylaws give the board the power to do so. In general, the membership "outranks" the board - the membership can rescind board motions, but not the other way around. If your bylaws are different, though, then they will have the answer. If they proclaim that they've done it anyway but do not have that power, the recourse is to ignore them, and then raise a point of order at a membership meeting. There is no mechanism for guaranteeing honest elections if you believe the election is being conducted by dishonest people. However, do your rules say that your board conducts the elections at membership meetings? Remember, at membership meetings the board is not present as a board, but just as people, and they have no special claim to control elections.

Do you have any idea why the chair thought there was some problem with this motion? In any case, if the chair rules a motion out of order, the assembly can appeal. The chair doesn't get to hold the motion in abeyance after the meeting. The chair should have been required to either rule it in order or out of order, not to leave it in limbo. If the chair didn't have a good reason it was out of order, an appeal should have followed.

Well the quote is true. But is someone actually trying to argue that debate on a main motion isn't allowed? Who would think that the fact that a motion is a proposal means the proposal can't be discussed?

Then they shouldn't complain when 3 people run roughshod. They can stop it anytime they want by thinking to make a motion to adjourn.

Why don't the people who are leaving, assuming there are more than 3 of them, adopt a motion to adjourn before they leave?

With one exception.

What does 'in progress of being acted upon' mean? The rule is that it cannot be rescinded if it's been executed. However, I'm not sure when a job description is "executed" prior to the execution of an employment contract.

More information is needed. What are these "enforcement practices?" Is it a written policy of some sort, and if so, where does it appear? Or do you just mean it's the way the board behaves? Who is violating the policies? What sorts of policies are they? Do your bylaws give your board the power to conduct (or, in this case, not conduct) discipline? Your board has only those powers delegated in the bylaws. Very few things are "grandfathered" unless a proviso is used for their adoption.

It was not a labor union.

I think you mean leading question. The answer varies depending on the context. In an assembly or committee using RONR, no, there's no obligation to answer, and certainly not in any particular form. The rules of the House likely contain their own provisions for hearings.

I told them (by phone) that in my opinion it wasn't permitted to allow write-in votes. I'm now (about a year later) wondering if I was right. From the answers, it seems I was, although perhaps for the wrong reason, and I could have mentioned that nominations could be reopened.

I have read the entirety of the bylaws, but it's been several years since I did so. They weren't all that clear on many things. They did not contain an explicit provision against reopening nominations from the floor. However, the time it came up (several years ago) the people involved did not want to reopen nominations, they specifically wanted to write in their nominee, and had not told people outside their group who the nominee was, presumably so that people couldn't campaign against them and break off some members of their group. The bylaws allowed for election by a plurality.

A motion may only be withdrawn by unanimous consent or before being stated by the chair. In the latter case, it does not require consent of the seconder.

No, for several reasons - but this was a motion before voting started. To clarify, it wasn't "we wrote people in, now count them," it was a motion just before voting started, to allow write-ins. I would think it would still make people angry, though, particularly since it is so easy to self-nominate.

It relates to the conduct of elections, which are business transacted in meetings.

If it's suspendable, then they should say "yes, all those nominees are acceptable to me, but I won't stay home, because maybe it will be suspended," so it's not clear any greater protection is actually given this way. Also, it seems like an odd thing to protect them from.

Suppose an organization's bylaws specify that nominations take place one month before the election (at a monthly meeting), that the election be by ballot, and that no write-ins are permitted. It is proposed, at the election meeting, to suspend the rules and count write-in votes. Since it is about the conduct of an election, that looks like a rule of order. However, does it protect absentees, since a member may have decided "yes, all those nominees are acceptable to me, so I will stay home?"

Motions are effective as soon as adopted, and can be carried out without respect to the approval of the minutes.

I'm not sure, but here are my thoughts. The bylaws call for this to be set "by the club." How does the club set it? The bylaws say nothing, so we'd presume it would do so in some lower-ranking set of rules. We don't find it in the standing rules (I presume a search of minutes was done to see if any motions to this effect were made). What's below standing rules? Custom. Custom falls to the floor if it contradicts any higher ranking rules, so the organization remains free to modify its meeting times as it wishes, but until then, its meeting place and time is as directed by custom. The chair doesn't have the power to unilaterally change this, else the bylaws would say "set by the chair." On the other hand, if the usual place were flooded, it would seem to be simply practical that, so long as everyone gets actual notice, you can move the meeting to, say, the bar down the block. But the lack of a flood doesn't seem to change anything. Moving on, the meeting was held in this manner, so the question is whether, if it was wrong at all, it constitutes a continuing breach. It might, if some people whose votes may have impacted the outcome were, in fact, sitting at the usual place, waiting for the meeting to start. It also might if, despite actual notice being given, some people whose votes may have impacted the outcome were unable to attend because the place the chair unilaterally selected was not accessible to them. Lacking either of those, it seems to me that, whether the action was permissible or not, the business remains valid.

Also, even if your rules did allow for virtual meetings (but not require them), you'd have no obligation to include him, as you have a quorum actually there. You might remind him that (I'm guessing here) the rest of you did not exile him out of the state, but rather, he went for his own purposes. Actions have consequences.

Good point.

The easy answer is that it doesn't matter if the quorum is based on seats or people - either way, it will be 3. 2 is half of 4, not a majority. The harder answer (for more general applications) is that I think it is unclear, but most of us here seem to be in agreement that it is a majority of actual members, not seats.

Well, I think it's rude to forward emails without permission, but it's not as though the President saw anything he wouldn't have eventually seen anyway. As for the President's alternative proposal, certainly there's nothing wrong with him showing it to board. Presenting it at a board meeting to be discussed and amended seems odd since it's not a board item, but whether or not it's out of order will depend on what exactly is presented to the board - i.e. the motion used. It is out of order to have discussion without a motion, so he'll need to make some motion regarding it, such as a board endorsement. Certainly, though, I don't see anything in what you quoted (although I do not know what else may be in your bylaws) that prevents the board from endorsing a proposal, or from presenting one during its report, so long as the person making the motion, likely the President, is also a member. Similarly, I don't think anything prevents him from presenting his motion as a member (assuming he is one) just because he's discussed it with the board, or because the board has endorsed it after giving feedback. I don't see where in your description of events the President questioned anyone's motives, but if it took place outside a meeting, it may be rude, indecorous, etc., but it is not out of order since the rules of order apply only to meetings. You may be able to discipline him for being rude, but in most organizations that is a slippery slope.

If the assembly members have voted to lay the motion on the table, I presume that at the time, there was either an urgent matter to attend to, or a desire to deal first with a motion that would arise later, not that they want it dead. If they wanted it dead, I presume they would have moved to postpone it indefinitely at that time. If they want it dead now, they can vote it down - it seems to me that the reason to want it dead before it comes off the table is to prevent debate on the matter.