Drake Savory

What if the bylaws read something like "When there is a vacancy in an office, the nomination committee shall submit a nomination for the office to the Board for their approval." That seems to me that the motion then would be, "Shall Anna Abattior be appointed to fill the vacancy of 5th Vice-President?" which would be a yes/no vote. If not, how would you rewrite it so the intention that the Board can vote down a nominated appointee?

I just used that in my example. Maybe it was a committee. The point is that if a single person is nominated to fill a vacancy, the Board holding a yes/no vote to approve the appointment is not all that unusual.

That's why I said "specific" not "interpret the rule the way you (the member, not you) want to". Ask them to point the the words "The Board votes on the amendment" because if the words aren't there then it's not a rule. Then as Chair rule accordingly and see if they use the nuclear option i.e. appeal and overrule you.

The way the OP described it, it seems like this was to fill a vacancy in the office of Vice-President. If so, the vote is not so odd. Someone like the President submits a name to the Board for approval. If the Board doesn't approve the appointment, the President keeps submitting names until they do.

Have them point to the rule that specifically states the Board votes on the amendment. As long as there was still quorum, why not say, "Bye Felicia." and keep going? What exactly is your quorum threshold? Pls quote it and what are your current number of members (see below)? Under RONR, this resignation needs to be approved. Do your rules state that a member can resign unilaterally? My personal thoughts on this. One, it could be so that the Board gives its recommendation to the membership, however they do not have the power to block it. I'm in an organization where the Board used to do everything. Once the membership got its power back, old habits die hard, so while the Board recognizes they do not have the authority to make decisions out of their power they still want to recommend to the members what decision they should make. Two, our bylaws were so messed up because after decades of amendments there were major inconsistencies. Therefore after the bylaws were completely rewritten, all amendments now go through our bylaws committee that report out if the suggested amendment needs to be amended to avoid inconsistencies or if it violates fundamental parliamentary rights. They offer no editorials or recommendations on the amendment. They are just a second set of eyes to make sure it is a proper amendment before sending it to the members. Maybe that is the purpose of having a Board member look at it or maybe it is a simple as they can help with the writing if there are issues about it.

Make it similar to a parliamentarian 1) Serves at the pleasure of the President. If the President does not want the IPP there then he has no right to be there. 2) Consultant only. No vote, right to make motions or debate. Addresses the assembly only by leave of the President.

I've put my finger on what was bothering me about the whole thing 1) The secondary amendment completely eliminated the primary amendment 2) Was directly contrary to the primary amendment in terms of having a meeting or not. Once I figured that out, I see where thinking of the secondary as a substitute amendment, now it makes a whole lot more sense.

"I move to adopt the proposed calendar."

The original motion was to adopt the calendar of meetings for 2024-2025. Note that the list of meeting did not indicate in-person or virtual but the presumption is that all meetings are in person unless specified. The primary amendment was to eliminate one of the meetings on the calendar. by amending the calendar. "I move to eliminate the June 1st meeting." The secondary amendment intended to reinstate the meeting (which has not been eliminated yet) by striking the entire primary amendment and substituting to make June 1st a virtual meeting. But it does not allow an amendment that if passed would reject the main motion. Example given in 12:22(2)

I can state without doubt that had we had an IPP position on our Board, one election would have cause 6 years of turmoil. I cannot think of any positives had we had that position. One thing that did help what to have our 2 state delegates on the Board but that is a whole other thing.

Isn't there a general rule that bylaws must be interpreted in a way that separate sections do not conflict if possible? If so, given the nebulous definition of "critical" and the specificity of the amendment clause, is there anyway to NOT interpret it as a 2/3 in-person vote?

Primary amendment was "cancel the meeting on June 1st". Secondary amendment was to basically strike out the entire amendment and change it to "make the June 1st meeting a virtual meeting." I thought that this was out of order because passing the secondary amendment in effect defeats the primary amendment but looking it up, it bans that at the amendment/main motion level - not secondary/primary. It didn't change the form of the amendment so that's OK, and I know an amendment can make a motion into it's opposite but I can't shake the feeling that because the secondary amendment completely eliminates all trace of the primary amendment that it was out of order. Was it and why?

Again, how? Is it discharged or is it just that the terms of the previous members expire?

This is about adopting an agenda at the beginning of the meeting. Further question: could a special order be "timed" as coming up upon the call of the Chair?

Reading the rules on special orders, I always interpreted "time" as clock-based. So now I sit in meeting where agendas are adopted "with flexibility" to allow guest speakers to present whenever they show up. Then it struck me, could a special order time be an event like "Presentation from the Hansen's Disease Prevention Academy when they arrive."? If not, is there any reason a body couldn't adopt a special rule of order allowing that?

On the question do we have a quorum, two-thirds answering in the affirmative we have quorum.

No but the other organization, the one members think we inherit our rules from, does prohibit business during executive session. I have to check the rules for them because there is a chance that organization is making up that rule too and it really is "we've always done it that way."

Is that an exact quote or your paraphrase because "and" and "or" mean two completely different things when removing an officer.

How? By appointing new members or through a formal motion to discharge the committee?

I did. See above.

I did, but you know how some people are. "It doesn't say you are supposed to take minutes." "It doesn't say not to and why would this rule exist if there weren't minutes taken during executive session?" "Well I tell you what. I was in a meeting ... musta been ought-six ... and they didn't take minutes when we went into executive session."

Fighting ignorance of others' question. I am Secretary for an organization and recently we had a section of the meeting under executive session. At the end of the meeting I explained the procedure I would go through if minutes were requested in order to not break confidentiality and some members objected because "as we all know" 🙄 you don't take minutes during executive session because, you know, confidentiality. I quoted the rules in RONR that imply minutes are still taken during executive session and how confidentiality remains intact (like minutes read and approved in executive session) but I don't think I convinced all of them because the idea of taking minutes in executive session runs counter to how they have seen it done incorrectly. There is also at play that another organization we are a member of that has special rules about executive session so of course those are our rules right? 🤔 Of note that other organization gets a lot of rules wrong also. The reason I bring all of this up and hope you are not too bored is life would be simpler for me if there were something explicit that the Secretary continues to take minutes in executive session in addition to all of the rules that imply this. Is there such a rule in RONR that I'm missing or am I stuck hoping a couple of vocal members can take 1+1 and get 2? Of note: asking them to find the rule that prohibits taking minutes during executive session will not work to convince them. The Chair agrees with me so the situation will take care of itself according to the rules thankfully. My question is about education of the members to overcome wrong-think.

Eye wood two

The point is that before Speaker Reed, if you were in the chamber yet refused to vote or answer the quorum call, you were considered not present for the purpose of the quorum. Reed changed the rule so if you were physically there then you were counted towards the quorum whether you answered or not.

Before then, someone refusing to vote was considered not present for the purpose of a quorum. Although then it was simply not saying anything. So what would happen is, and I am simplifying the numbers, 48 vote yea, 1 votes nay, 51 abstain or are not present. Doesn't pass because only 49 of the 100 are "present". Then someone makes a quorum call and 51 don't answer or try to leave the hall thus no quorum. On January 29, 1890 after such a disappearing quorum vote, Speaker Reed locked the doors and ordered to clerk to record everyone in the room as present, which resulted in Representatives complaining that they weren't really there. However, the motion in question ultimately passed 162-3-163 with 179 needed for quorum. The rule abolishing the disappearing quorum became a House Rule on February 6, 1890.