Alexis Hunt

No, never. A motion must always be phrased as a proposal to do something. If you make a motion "not to do X", and it is voted down, then did the assembly just agree to do X? If no member of the assembly wants to do X, then there is no motion required for that. If nobody moves that the assembly do X, then the assembly won't do X. In some cases, this may feel weird, such as if someone outside the assembly just made a presentation asking for money. In this case, though, the chair might go as far as saying "Is there a motion to award $X to Mr. Jingles?" but if nobody moves it, the assembly moves on to the next item of business. If members are split, then someone who is in favour of doing X should move it. Then the people opposed can argue against it. The only sort-of exception is in the case where there is a negative action which is different from doing nothing. For instance, if someone were applying to a position, then sending them a rejection letter is not doing nothing, so it would be in order to move to send them a rejection letter.

There's two parts to this. First, about the point of order: the chair should never ask for a motion to implement their ruling. If the chair rules that the point of order is well taken and the rules were violated, the chair should immediately order the situation to be corrected (in the case of an election, most likely by declaring the election invalid, but possibly by ordering a recount if, for instance, the totals reported do not add up). If the chair rules that it is not well taken, the chair should do nothing (apart from stating the ruling, of course). As for reviewing the ballots, the only way to review them is with a recount, which must be ordered by the assembly. The Secretary seals the ballots after the election and opens them only if a recount is ordered. Once the time limit for ordering a recount (in most organizations, this is usually just the next meeting) has passed, then the Secretary destroys them. The member could specify who is to do the recounting or who is to observe in the motion for the recount, and it would be up to the assembly to deal with this as it sees appropriate.

Suppose there are three people up (A, B, C) for election for two seats. The votes are split evenly: one third for A and B, one third for B and C, one third for C and A. Then each candidate receives two-thirds of the possible votes.

What's the underlying reason for this question?

I agree if this is truly a special meeting. A special meeting may only be held if permitted by your bylaws. If, instead, this is actually just an adjournment of the regular meeting, then there are on restrictions on the business to consider. If the original motion that you were dealing with and decided to hold this meeting to finish working on was already pending at the time, then consideration should automatically be resumed without a member having an opportunity to make a new motion. If this member wishes their motion to Rescind to be considered first, they should move to Lay on the Table the pending motion so that they can introduce their motion. If the business is not pending, and is ready to be moved, then you should recognize the member who will move that motion (p. 381, ll. 4-9). If it is not ready to be moved (because this is a small board that does informal discussion before a motion is moved), then you would eventually have to recognize the member who wishes to make a motion to Rescind as a part of that process and, because no motion is pending, the motion to Rescind would be properly made and take precedence over the ongoing discussion.

The only requirement is that a quorum be present. If the director leaving does not mean that quorum is lost, the meeting may continue.

"Minimal" in the sense of "no more than is necessary to bring things into compliance with the bylaws". It also depends how someone interprets "file a complaint". I could see someone arguing that that merely amounts to the right to have a complaint studied by an investigative committee, rather than preferring charges, for instance.

The motions aren't even null and void if nobody is taking the minutes, although there may be a bunch of argument later about what was actually adopted.

Inasmuch as any voting system is, yes. I'm not quite sure I understand.

This is called approval voting, and while it has its merits, it does violate the fundmental principle of parliamentary law that each member only gets one vote on each question, so it requires bylaws authorization explicitly. The procedure there is meant more as an example than as a bulletproof set of rules, but I would look at p. 427, ll. 26-31, which provides that, in this case, the tie is broken in favour of whoever was strongest on the first preferences rather than eliminating both candidates. Since it does not specify how to handle a further tie here, it would be up to the assembly to determine how to deal with it: the tellers should explain the situation to the chair, and the chair should then explain it to the assembly in a way that does not tell them who is affected. At that point, the assembly can decide how to proceed---the most likely choices being to either hold another ballot between just the tied candidates, or to look at number of second preferences, then third preferences, and so on.

The most important thing, by far, is that the chair make it absolutely clear to members what it is that they are voting on. In particularly complex situations where there are many motions pending, depending on the skill and attention of the members, it may be fine for the chair only to state the immediately pending question, or they may well need to state the entire stack of motions. It may also depend on what aids are available---after a main motion has been amended several times, if there is not an easily available copy of the main motion as it stands (say, on a projector screen), then it may be required to repeat the main motion more frequently.

Sorry about the incorrect reference! It is up to your organization to interpret its own rules, and that can only be properly done by taking them all into account. You may find the principles of interpretation on pages 588-591 to be helpful. It is normally dangerous for one document to refer to a document of a lower class, because the second document is easier to amend than the first document so the reference may become out of date. It is fine for them to say something like "Discipline procedures may be specified in the Policy & Procedure Manual," to make it clear that those rules can be changed at a lower level (although if it does, it should also clearly define what the Policy & Procedure Manual. But if the bylaws say "The discipline procedures are specified in the Policy & Procedure Manual," then you would have a challenge to interpret it. One could, for instance, make an argument that in the presence of that wording in the bylaws, the discipline procedures cannot expire because that would conflict with the requirement in the bylaws that discipline procedures be specified in the Policy & Procedure Manual. If the organization agrees with the fact that it currently has no Policy & Procedure Manual, then it has to determine which discipline procedures to follow. If your bylaws explicitly adopt RONR as the parliamentary authority, then it seems to me that it would be a sensible to interpret the procedures in section 63 as governing, perhaps with minimal modifications as required by the bylaws such as to allow "any member to file a complaint".

If chapter delegates are defined by bylaw or some other document, then you would probably need to pass a motion to amend that document to add it to the requirements. Even if that isn't required, it is highly advisable to put it in the same place.

For a member to move that a blank to be created, they could say "I move to strike $300 and fill in the blank" or something else that makes it clear that they want to use the blank-filling procedure. For the motion to Reconsider and Enter in the Minutes, they would say something like "I move to reconsider the motion to <X> and enter it in the minutes."

In general, no, the forms in RONR are not strictly required. In general, a member rising to seek the floor needs to get the chair's attention. It may be that just standing is enough, but it may not. It can also depend on the context: if you are interrupting a speaker with a point of order or a request for information, most often I've heard "Point of order, Mr. Chair", or "Mr. President, a Point of Order". Likewise, the title of the presiding officer may change (Speaker is quite common in student groups where I am from, for instance).

In corporate boards, it's not uncommon for the secretary to be a high-ranking employee, often an executive, who is not a member. In such a situation, the board can excuse non-members, including its secretary. But such boards are also usually subject to statutory requirements to take and keep minutes, so it becomes the responsibility of the board to ensure that proper minutes are taken for that session and kept on file. If there's a great deal of confusion on how best to do this or the requirements involved, this is a question for a lawyer and not a parliamentarian.

Usually, the ordering of VPs matters if the President resigns or is removed from position. Then, unless your bylaws specifically say otherwise, the 1st VP becomes President, the 2nd VP becomes 1st VP, and so on.

Page 47, ll. 21-31 gives the best you'll see in RONR about it. Your bylaws may provide additional rules (it's not uncommon to specify conflict of interest rules in bylaws), but if they do not, then that's what you have to go on. As a matter of rules, a member's rights are not restricted by a conflict of interest unless your bylaws say so.

If your bylaws provide a procedure to expel someone for life, and you want to expel them for life, you have to follow that procedure. Nothing, however, stops you from getting the person to state that they agree with it.

If your constitution says that you can only amend it with certain procedures, those procedures must be followed. There is no short-cutting or suspending them.

Ultimately, RONR doesn't say anything about budgets.

If you want the business to be done, yes. Nothing requires it to be introduced (not re-introduced since it was never introduced the first time!) either at the next assembly meeting or any EC meeting. Unless you have provisions in your bylaws to the contrary, however, there is nothing stopping someone from bringing the items up at either of those bodies. I agree that this seems fine. Depending on how officious your organization is, it may be desirable to have the reports presented very briefly at the next regular meeting so that they are "on record" as having been submitted. That really depends on how much people care, though.

Why does that request not conflict with a motion previously adopted, namely to accept the resignation?

Assuming, of course, that the club is what elects the officer in the first place. Unless otherwise specified in your bylaws, the power to accept a resignation and fill a vacancy rests with the same body that made the initial appointment/election.

See pp. 289-291, which explain a resignation as a manner of request to be excused from a duty. See also FAQ 18 (http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#18). Now that I have a copy of the book handy, page 297, ll. 8-10 say "A request for permission to withdraw a motion... can be made at any time before voting on the question has begun." So I don't believe it is the case that a resignation can be withdrawn after it's accepted.