Atul Kapur

It depends on the nature of the contingency and whether the motion is still in force and effect. Is it impossible for that contingency to be met (eg: "That, if we receive a message from the Klingon Empire by October 31, 2020, we will...") then the motion is no longer in force and effect. No action is necessary to rescind it. If the contingency could still possibly occur (no matter how unlikely that possibility is), then the motion is still in force and effect. For example, a motion "That, if we receive a message from the Klingon Empire, we will..." is still in effect, no matter how long ago it was adopted (even if it was as far back as 1966). If you no longer want to do that, then you would need to rescind the motion,

Agreeing with Mr. Martin, I add that your Immediate Past President (IPP) position is filled and there is no vacancy. You say that "Our bylaws do not reference this issue." but they do: That person appears to be "the 3 month tenured president". Since that person was also voted in as a director, that person holds two positions on your board (NOTE: this person only has one vote, no matter how many positions they fill). This person could--but is not required to--resign as an elected director and keep the IPP position. That would result in a vacancy that could be filled by the procedure that is in your bylaws.

You have two members. A majority of two is two. You have three vacancies to fill. If you're bylaws said that a quorum was defined as three members, then you'd have a problem.

RONR (12th ed.) 4:52?

So your answer to my request for a citation supporting your point is to give the same citation I used that refutes your point. Are you, in fact, saying that a Request for Information arising from the Treasurer's report should be ruled not in order? What about multiple people rising (or lining up at the microphone) to ask separate Requests for Information? And how is multiple requests different from Q&A period?

How else does one pose a question to the Treasurer in RONR? Or in other words, define for me the difference between a "Question and Answer period" and a series of RFI's. And, while you're at it, please provide the citation for your statement.

What is your citation to back up this statement that a Request for Information (RFI) would be out of order? RONR (12th ed.) 33:2(1) (aka SDC 1) says a RFI can, "be made at any time when no question is pending." Ibid 48:24 says: "No action of acceptance by the assembly is required--or proper. . ." It doesn't prohibit a RFI. Ibid 33:6 says that a RFI is a request, "for information relevant to the business at hand". Immediately after the treasurer's report is presented, wouldn't that be the business at hand?

What's wrong with calling the presiding officer, "Chair"? In Canada, I hear it used as a title fairly often. A member who is recognized often starts by saying, "Thank you, Chair. I move that..." It's similar in many of our legislatures, where members often precede their questions with, "Through you, Speaker, to the Minister..."

In particular, I think you will find 45:36 helpful where it says that each section of the ballot is treated as if it were a separate ballot Imagine cutting up a ballot containing multiple elections into each of its separate elections, then counting the ballots for each position's election separately. So an abstention in one section reduces the number of ballots cast for that section. But the number of ballots cast in each separate election are independent of each other.

RONR only allows previous notice to be given orally "at the preceding meeting" RONR (12th ed.) 10:44, 10:47, and 44:10. And, if given at the preceding meeting, "The secretary then records the notice in the minutes." Since the gathering that is being discussed is not a meeting, and there will be no minutes of that gathering, then I don't believe that a notice given this way is valid.

By that standard my emergency physician group could never schedule a meeting, because at any moment at least four of us are on duty. Likewise for a union with members working all three eight-hour shifts covering the full 24 hours. Many such groups find alternatives so that the same group of members are not disadvantaged more than others. Or use work-arounds such as multi-part meetings.

I was trying to be nice and answer the question that I thought Mr. Zook was asking. But since he didn't like my answer, I won't try to do that again. I do agree with Mr. Honemann when he says,

As Mr Honemann says, your question is not exactly related to the OP. However, to answer your question, if the original motion was adopted in 2014 and then rescinded in 2019, that does not "deauthorize" the laying of flowers from 2014-19. It just says that you will not be doing that going forward.

Unless your bylaws say otherwise, only members of that particular committee have the right to attend its meetings. So, they would be the only ones who have the right to be notified.

Just focussing on the question of the signature, I have seen this with several corporations. I recommend you look at the law that applies to your Association to see if there's anything about this requirement in there.

That seems at least a bit unbalanced, in the sense as used in: "PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING PARLIAMENTARY LAW The rules of parliamentary law found in this book will, on analysis, be seen to be constructed upon a careful balance of the rights of persons or subgroups within an organization’s or an assembly’s total membership. That is, these rules are based on a regard for the rights: • of the majority, • of the minority, especially a strong minority—greater than one third, • of individual members, • of absentees, and • of all these together." and the definition of the will of the assembly "Ultimately, it is the majority taking part in the assembly who decide the general will, but only following upon the opportunity for a deliberative process of full and free discussion." RONR (12th ed.) p. xlix

That type of protection only goes so far. On a completely unrelated topic, I hope all of you believers in democracy have voted or made plans to vote on Tuesday.

Yes, true. And in that case, it should only require the 2/3 vote.

My point was that, depending on the detail in the options, filling blanks could be considered by the assembly if they felt it was reasonable. After being chastened by Mr. Honemann's remarks, I still must express surprise at Mr. Zook's assertion that amending is more flexible than filling blanks. Well, debate can occur and suggestions can be made concurrently. The opportunity to make suggestions is until a vote is taken, and that only occurs "[w]hen no further suggestions are offered, and there is no further debate" RONR (12th ed.) 12:99 How is this different from amending? If "firetruck" is voted on as an amendment and inserted before "red" there will be no opportunity to propose "rose red" without reconsidering the vote on "firetruck." SImilarly if "red" is adopted as the chosen colour. I'm not sure how this is effectively different than the alternative method. Once the assembly votes for single-elimination, it is too late to propose a double-elimination format. There is another book that uses a process that would answer your criticism, but that's outside the purview of this forum.

There are a limited number of options that could still reasonably be dealt with by the mechanism of filling blanks. For example, Single-elimination with seeding vs Single-elimination with random allocation. The assembly can decide if this is reasonable for itself by deciding on the incidental motion to create a blank.

There's nothing in RONR that will permit this. The purpose of notice is to allow members to decide whether they wish to attend the meeting to express their views and vote on the measure in question. The rights of members who are not present at the first meeting are violated if you vote at the same meeting where notice was provided.

Let's ask Guest Chairperson to give us a more clear question in a new thread.

RONR, by using the word "among" clearly states that this list is not exhaustive. I think that the only issue that determines whether filling blanks works is whether amendments to the formats are allowed, if not you are just choosing between them. The specification is "which format." Proposals could be a round-robin tournament with no playoff, a single-elimination tournament with seeding, a double-elimination tournament, etc. It doesn't need to be made overcomplicated.

I don't follow your logic. I have, as a member of a board, often asked questions about the treasurer's report. Why does that lead you to suspect the OP is not a member of the board?

You could do a variation of Filling a Blank. That would allow you to choose between A and B. Then you vote on whether the preferred option replaces C. The motion would be That we replace the current tournament format with Format ___." Formats A and B are proposed to fill the blank. Debate and a vote occur. They are voted on in order proposed and the first one to get majority support fills the blank. Then you vote on whether to adopt the, now completed, motion: That we replace the current tournament format with Format [A or B] If adopted, that's your new format. If not adopted, then you're sticking with the current one. An alternative, expanding on Mr. Martin's post, is to propose a motion to replace current format with Format A. Someone can move to substitute Format B for Format A. That allows the assembly to discuss the merits of both proposals and either of the formats could be amended to improve them (maybe even stealing parts of the other format) before the decision is made.