Benjamin Geiger

While the discussions of that subcommittee would be secret, wouldn't any actions of the subcommittee either have to come back to the full committee for action (where the matter would be discussed again) or explicitly outlined in the motion forming the subcommittee?

The "Executive Committee" is the organization itself. Yes, it's confusing. HCDEC Bylaws Revised August 21, 2017.pdf (Not actually revised, just amended...)

Not specifically, neither for the Steering Committee nor for other committees. An amendment to introduce a quorum is actually being proposed during the next general meeting. We do have a custom quorum for the organization: In either case, though, seven is less than 40% of the membership of the Steering Committee (and is definitely less than 40% of the membership of the organization). And I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that 40% of the membership of the full organization is needed at Steering Committee meetings...

The part I quoted is from the bylaws. I say "de-facto" in that it's never referred to as a board, but it performs the role of one. The chair did, and nobody objected. (I've been trying to pick my battles.) I was going by the bylaws' definition: I figured something like that was the case.

Members. The presidents of the local Caucuses aren't required to be members, but most are.

During the most recent meeting of our organization's "Steering Committee" (a de-facto board), the last item on the agenda was an "executive session". However, when that time came, everyone except for the officers was dismissed. (It should be noted that our Steering Committee has close to 30 members, and only five of them are officers. Most---but not all---of the rest are members of the organization. It's complicated.) Was this a misunderstanding on the officers' part, or on mine? The bylaws (both of the state-level organization and of the local organization) don't mention executive sessions. Can members (of the board) be excluded from a meeting in this fashion?

Yeah, I don't think dueling conforms to parliamentary procedure. It has its own set of rules. I could let this opportunity for a Hamilton reference go by, but, appropriately enough, I'm not throwing away my shot.

Is there anything in your bylaws that would prohibit her being reelected?

There seems to be a rash of 'thread necromancy' these days; that is, people are posting replies to long-dead threads, bringing them back to life, as it were. Some forum software includes an option to automatically disable replies to a discussion that hasn't been posted to in a given amount of time. Does the software running this forum have that option? If so, perhaps threads that have been inactive for some time (a month or two, perhaps) could be automatically locked, to force new discussions instead of reviving old ones?

Our bylaws provide for a Steering Committee. The relevant portion of our bylaws is as follows: Is our Steering Committee actually a board? If so, what rules differ? What is the practical difference between a committee and a board? The discussion on p. 9 seems to boil down to "boards have the authority of the assembly and committees don't", but I'm not certain I understand it properly.

It doesn't show up directly very often; it's the central misconception behind several related problems. The idea of a mover unilaterally withdrawing or amending their motion is based on this misconception. So is the aforementioned "friendly amendment".

The chair should abstain from making or seconding motions, debating, or voting except by ballot or when it would decide the motion. The chair, however, does have the option of recusing themself in order to participate in debate or make or second motions. In that case, while that person may still be President, they are not chair anymore and may make motions.

Our bylaws require ten days' written notice for bylaws amendments. Can we email the notice, or does it need to be ink on paper? It should be noted that our calls to meetings are already distributed by email, along with the agenda, draft minutes, and other information. If it's a matter where the assembly needs to interpret the bylaws, how do we go about doing so? Preferably without delaying matters to the next meeting or further?

Eh, that's kinda what I figured. Guess we'll just have to wait until the bylaws are amended.

Not unless the motion is not in order. EDIT: Or the bylaws say so.

Our bylaws contain this paragraph: The problem is that "Caucuses" should have been "Caucuses and Clubs", but it was left out of the bylaws during a recent amendment. We're working on getting it put back in. In the meantime, though, I've received this question (as chair of the Bylaws Committee): "If the Steering Committee would agree to allow the club presidents to vote until we change the Bylaws, do you see any obstacles to that?" I know that allowing those who are not members of the assembly to vote is prohibited, but how does it apply to the committee specifically? Everyone involved (as I understand it) is a member of the assembly. TL;DR: Can the committee (or the assembly) give the ability to vote in the committee to those who aren't explicitly included as committee members?

Because nobody got a majority the first time, perhaps?

"Friendly amendments" aren't a thing. See FAQ entry #8.

Our bylaws demand that the chair appoint a member parliamentarian, and have no workaround for allowing the parliamentarian to participate. (This subject has come up in this very forum, in fact.) I've made it clear to the chair that I will refuse to accept the role of parliamentarian in the absence of such a special rule of order, because the very reason I joined was to have a say in my representation. It should also be noted that our bylaws also contain a rule requiring a 2/3 vote in order to bring up new business: So, as I understand things, I'd need to get a 2/3 vote in two consecutive meetings, once to introduce the special rule of order, and once to pass it. EDIT: The relevant portion of our bylaws: EDIT2: This got off on more of a tangent than I intended. I apologize for derailing.

Of course that raises the question of why any member of any organization would willingly take the role of parliamentarian.

If the Constitution and Bylaws don't explicitly permit electronic voting (and specify RONR as their parliamentary authority), all votes must be taken in person during a meeting.

I'm leaning toward "... is someone who stands to benefit from the change."

I'm fairly certain that's beyond the scope of this board. You should probably contact a legal professional.

Ah. A fair point, well made. I didn't consider the possibility that a legislative body could meet only once a week or that Reconsider could have been moved before the end of that day. I defer to your expertise.

I was under the impression that Reconsider would be out of order, given the time elapsed since the original motion's adoption. It seems as though the alternative would be to either Rescind the originally passed motion and then pass the modified version, or to Amend Something Previously Adopted. Am I mistaken about the time limits for Reconsider (must be done before the end of a single-day session or by the end of the next meeting day in a multi-day session)? EDIT: p. 316 ll. 22-30: How can a motion to Reconsider be in order if a week elapses between the original motion and the desired reconsideration?