Drake Savory

On 2/23/2019 at 11:29 AM, Joshua Katz said:

Agreeing with Mr. Mervosh, it's also not proper for the Secretary to cast the vote of the assembly if a ballot vote IS required. If one is required, an actual ballot vote should be held. The lack of a second candidate does not prevent members from voting for a write-in, and thus election of the unopposed candidate is not assured. 

should be held or must be held?

Looking at p124 l10-18

What is the effect of accepting a committee report?  I'm not referring to a motion arising from the report but rather accepting the report itself.

Consequently, what happens when the motion to accept the report fails?

Here's a question: would it make a difference if the un-amendability provision is within the section itself?  I think so.

Example 1)  Section 3:  The Chair shall be addressed as Dominus et Deus; Section 4:   Section 3 shall never ever be repealed or amended.

Solution) Repeal Section 4 then amend/repeal Section 3

Example 2)  Section 3 The Chair shall be addressed as Dominus et Deus.   This section shall never ever be repealed or amended.

Solution)  ???

1 minute ago, Josh Martin said:

No one has suggested that the motion should not come before the assembly, or that a second is required. The only question is whether it is appropriate for the parliamentarian to make the motion, or if another member of the committee should make the motion. I am inclined to think that another member of the committee should make the motion, since the parliamentarian making the motion could interfere with his appearance of impartiality.

I get that but if the parliamentarian is acting qua committee chair reporting out on the committee's decisions then they are acting impartially especially if they do not debate the motion.  

I like the OP's idea of removing ex-officio references. I find that in my organization it is implied that "ex-officio" implies "not a full member"*.  

But what about this: defining ex-officio in the Standing Rules, Special Rules of Order or Bylaws so that everyone is clear what it means now and in the future.  It would also give the body freedom to define ex-officio to suit their needs so for example Past Presidents that are ex-officio members of the Board don't count for the quorum (that could be bad if there is a small Board and are a lot of PPs that never go to meetings).

*Of course I correct them.

If a committee of more than one member includes a motion as part of its report a second is not needed because it is presumed that a second committee member agrees the motion should be brought before the assembly, why couldn't the same presumption be made here if two members other than the parliamentarian are on the committee, specifically that the two non-parliamentarian members feel the motion should come before the assembly.  

There are motions that could  delay a vote but those would have to be approved by the membership, not the Chair