Chris Harrison

The President may or may not be correct in believing that just because a specific authority is granted by the bylaws means that authority can't be suspended by the members. For example, the duty to preside at meetings (which is a pretty significant one) can be suspended by a 2/3 vote (RONR pp. 651-653). Can you give us more detail in what the members were trying to do?

The President may want to be careful in declaring the meeting adjourned and walking out since absent the building being on fire or something similar the assembly would be within their rights to have the Vice President take over and continue the meeting. There being a majority in favor of those "dilatory" motions it very well could be viewed by them as the President being the one in the wrong for attempting to thwart the will of the assembly and depending on how much of a majority there is he could find at the next meeting he has more problems than dealing with motions he believes to be dilatory. By a 2/3 vote they could decide to remove him from the Chair for that meeting or depending on how the bylaws deal with discipline they could be on their way to removing him from office altogether.

If I hadn't read the original message yesterday then I would have been confused as well. The OP drastically edited the first message which made everything else pretty much nonsensical.

Are there any former members who were around at that time you can ask? I do have to wonder why this is only now being noticed rather than at the meeting after this motion was made.

Your question is pretty vague. Can you please clarify it? What was being said and what was happening at the time?

RONR pp. 380-382 goes into more detail regarding preference in recognition. That being said I think that you ultimately will need to recognize whoever rises first seeking the floor and the others will simply have to work within the rules to get their competing motions considered (for example they can check out RONR pp. 153-162 regarding offering an amendment to the motion via a substitution). Stay tuned for thoughts from others who may have more experience dealing with larger more contentious assemblies.

I'm not sure I understand your question. What exactly don't you think is right about the situation?

...However it sounds like the "member" in question is making the nomination not being nominated. That being said I still agree that this is a matter of interpreting those pesky rules.

Depending on how the term of office is defined in the bylaws you may need a full fledged trial to remove the Board members from office or you may be able to remove them from office by a 2/3 vote without notice, a majority vote with notice or a majority of the ENTIRE membership. Can you give us the EXACT language in your bylaws regarding the term of office? Is it a fixed term or is there some qualifying language (and/or until their successor is elected or similar language)?

RONR doesn't require it.

Has the person taken over as President yet? Also, how did this uncounted ballot fall through the cracks? Are you sure that this ballot is legitimate and wasn't "planted" by one of the loser's allies in order to force another round of voting? Ultimately it is up to the organization to determine if this extra ballot is legitimate and I think an argument could be made that even if the winner had already taken office another round of voting is required because a member's vote wasn't added to the total and it would affect the results of the election. However, I'd find it very suspicious that the election's result was determined by a single vote and then lo-and-behold a ballot shows up that...surprise...caused a tie vote.

Well, I would say that I don't know if I would consider a coin toss as a "vote" but otherwise if you are against the proposed amendment you can talk to the Board members with your concerns and vote against it at the General Membership meeting.

What do your bylaws say? Do they specifically permit absentee voting? How do they define a quorum?

Yes (RONR pp. 645-648). That doesn't change matters as far as RONR is concerned but your Bylaws may give State officers more protection so you should check them.

What do the bylaws say regarding what constitutes a quorum? Also, is the President a member of the body which is meeting?

Such details should be located in the organization's Constitution and/or applicable laws governing those sort of organizations.

That depends on the wording in the bylaws regarding the definition of a quorum. Can you give us the exact language?

What you are describing sounds more like a motion to refer the motion back to the Renovation Committee to do more research. A motion to Commit (Refer) does not require the approval of the original motion maker. After a question is before the assembly it belongs to the assembly and they are the ones who decide how to proceed.

That depends because the substitute may be germane to the motion being substituted or it may not be. Can you provide more detail about the original motion and the proposed substitute?

That depends on the nature of the motion and how much authority the bylaws give the General Membership. That depends on whether the Board has the exclusive authority over the type of business the motion covers. See above answers as well as Official Interpretation 2006-12. See above answers as well as FAQ #20. In other words...the devil is in the details.

I'm thinking the "unbeatable" and "unnameable" are a result of auto-correct on the OP's phone and it was supposed to be "undebatable" and "unamendable" and neither word is recognized by my computer's spell check.

Yes that is true for a member who is serving as the assembly's parliamentarian (RONR p. 467 ll. 8-19).

There is no mechanism (under RONR) for a meeting to be cancelled.

Maybe. It depends on if the Board has the unilateral authority to make offers to the Cantor.

Nonmembers have no rights at meetings (including the right to make motions). However, by suspending the rules (2/3 vote) the nonmember can be permitted to make motions or speak in debate.