Atul Kapur

Apparently the format is so poor that you misunderstood the idea (or I did). The proposal is about removal of officers by the board, which we are told is the body that elects the officers. I see that Joshua reads it the same way as you but I am still confident in my reading of this provision (emphasis added) that it is the board that elects the officers

No. I don't conflate the chair's error in mistakenly declaring a motion adopted (or lost) and the actual vote requirement to adopt that motion.

A member whose status is not in doubt could raise a point of order that the acceptance of the vice-chair's (withdrawn) request to resign is null and void and a continuing breach as it conflicts with a motion adopted and still in force — namely, the vice-chair's election. RONR (12th ed.) 23:6(b) If the chair finds the point not well taken, then an appeal can be made.

If, at long last, we have arrived at the point and it is regarding intentional (as opposed to inadvertent or incompetent) misuse or misapplication of the rules of order, then I believe there is no question that a malicious presiding officer can mislead an assembly that does not know better. But as for this example, until and immediately after the result has been announced, a point of order that the motion did not receive a two-thirds vote is timely, no matter whether the motion was labelled as a special rule instead of a motion to limit debate. You can call a duck a horse, but you still can't ride it in the Kentucky Derby.

The benefit of having a "Definitions and Abbreviations" section is that readers can easily find the full name instead of having to search for where the abbreviation/initialism is first used. I am more concerned with making the document easy for a reader to find the information they are looking for than whether it is too formal or other stylistic matters. That being said, if you have 30 such organizations, you need that level of formality.

They are not alike. "Semicolon" does not have one dash. "Sergeant at arms" does not have two dashes.

Generally, whoever is recognized first to speak. Depending on the nature of the amendments, the device Creating and Filling a Blank may be helpful. Say that you're looking at setting the dues or fees, or choosing a location or activity. If you wish to provide more details about the motion and the anticipated amendments, you may get more specific advice.

Well, it's actually a motion to Limit Debate, rather than a special rule, but it is in order. See Mr. Honemann's reference to §15.

I am of the opinion that it is an example of the unqualified wording described, and discouraged, in 56:28 "the unqualified wording 'for a term of … year(s)' should be avoided, because at the end of that time there would be no officers if new ones had not been elected." In my opinion, removal under this wording has the same requirements as if it said "and until...".

The governing documents of the home's corporation will be at least as important as RONR. I have seen organizations that have been set up to create this sort of governance model. This may also warrant a lawyer's review.

The church council appears to operate similar to a committee under RONR. As the recommendation is coming from a body with, presumably, more than one member of the congregation, no second should be needed (but if someone objects, it would likely be quicker to have another member of the council second the motion than to educate the congregation). It should be worded as a motion made by the member reporting on behalf of the council with a wording such as, "That the church approve the bid as recommended by the council." This motion, the same as any main motion, is debatable, amendable, and requires a majority vote. Unless your church has special rules, you cannot just have a motion and a vote, without giving your membership an opportunity to debate it or amend it if they desire.

Does it state explicitly that these officers have to remain as members of the board throughout their term? This is implied. If so, then removal from the board would effectively remove the person from both the board and the office of Chair.

I wanted to clarify because @rwin123's follow-up made me understand that the main (substituted) motion had not been finally disposed of. Glad we agree.

Announcing actions taken at a meeting does not have to depend on the minutes being approved. An Action Log, Report of Board Meeting Decisions, Newsletter, or other similarly titled communication can be sent to members immediately after the meeting for their information. It would be good to note that anything in that communication does not replace the mi utes as the official record and is subject to correction when the minutes are approved. The board can, just prior to adjourning, agree what will be included in the communication.

While I don't think the steering committee has the authority to make that determination, it seems accurate. Well, you don't need to rescind anything. And you cannot rescind an amendment. However, there is another solution. As this has carried over to another meeting which is, I presume, another session, you can move to substitute the original motion back in. This would reverse the substitution done at the previous meeting. This is allowed because the current meeting is a different session from the previous meeting. Joshua, I believe you will recall previous discussions on this forum where @Dan Honemann has explained that a different session has the ability to do just that when the main motion has carried forward from a previous session as Unfinished Business. That is, at Session One, main motion MM is amended by adding 'A.' MM+A is carried over to next session as Unfinished Business. At Session Two, MM+A can be amended to remove A leaving MM. Same principle applies to a substitute.

There are several problems here. The most important is that the members apparently did not have a clear understanding of what they were voting on. An amendment (which includes a substitute motion) which is simply a negation of the main motion should have been ruled out of order. Your group apparently only voted once. There should have been two votes: First, the motion to replace the main motion with the substitute; Second the vote whether to adopt the current motion under consideration (the substitute if it was adopted in the first vote, or the original main motion if not). As it's not at all clear what motion was adopted it is hard to advise whether it can be rescinded or best be dealt with another way. It may even be that you just adopted the motion to substitute but did not actually vote on the (now substituted) main motion; that is, you may not have made a final decision at all.

Quorum refers to the number present, not the number voting. So you appear to have answered your own question and If your rules say that the proxies count as being "present" then that definition of present should be the same in both quotes above. So if you need ⅔ of those present (which must be a rule of your organization as there's nothing in RONR with such a high requirement) then that is what you need. If only 30 are able to cast a vote, then you need all of them to vote in favour. If fewer than 30 are able to cast a vote (say 27 in-person and 23 proxies) then there is no way that the motion requiring ⅔ of those present can be adopted. You do not "set aside" your quorum requirement. Note that this response makes assumptions around your rules on proxies, based on what you've told us.

I have worked with and am familiar with the CBCA but I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. The method that you describe ("members vote for, or against, each candidate") is only one way of satisfying the Ordinary Resolution requirement under CBCA. I am not clear whether your current method of acclamation is appropriate under the law. As CBCA requirements in this case are quite different from RONR, you may want to engage the services of a parliamentarian and a lawyer to ensure that your processes both follow the law and lead to a board that reflects the desire of the membership. For the regulars, just FYI, the act requires election of Directors to be done by adoption of a motion ("Ordinary Resolution") so is different from RONR.

Bullying of another member may be cause for discipline, even if it is unrelated to a meeting. "an organization or assembly has the ultimate right to make and enforce its own rules, and to require that its members refrain from conduct injurious to the organization or its purposes" RONR (12th ed.) 61:1 "A society has the right to investigate the character of its members and officers as may be necessary to the enforcement of its own standards" 63:2 But these disciplinary measures are detailed and complicated. The OP should first look within their own organization's governing documents and rules to see it there are explicitly written codes or rules of behaviour and a disciplinary process. If not, a careful reading of Sections 61 and 63 of RONR may be helpful. Depending on the situation and circumstances between them and within the organization, there may be informal things that the OP could try, but this goes beyond this forum's rules.

Please clarify whether "Good of the Order" is specifically listed as an item on your meeting agenda.

What if the board adopted a policy of NANG for all activities of the organization? That would clearly be within its authority, correct? And would include meetings. Assuming you agree (which you should, Josh, the logic's infallible 😉), then why couldn't they adopt a policy of NANG at all meetings of the organization?

One could argue that, but one would be incorrect. RONR (12th ed.) 1:1 says that one of the distinguishing chacteristics of a deliberative assembly is, "The group meets in a single room or area or under equivalent conditions of opportunity for simultaneous aural communication among all participants." (Emphasis added). The member is not in attendance just by virtue of being in the same building, even if the bylaws don't specify a particular room as the location (which I would recommend that they don't). Extending your example, that would mean that the Dog Lovers of Hincky in Meeting Room A and the Hincky Cat Fanciers in Meeting Room B of the town hall would actually be in the same meeting. And as Dr. Peter Venkman told us in Ghostbusters, that can only lead to mass hysteria.

By the way, @Wright Stuff, note that majority of the entire membership (MEM) is not an alternative in every instance where a ⅔ vote is required. For example, if the bylaws say that amendments require a ⅔ vote, then MEM is not an alternative. Another example is suspend the rules. See Table VI on tinted page t48 for complete information.

46:1 says that motion would be "not proper," rsther than just not preferable. Why wouldn't 46:1 apply here, as it does to any other election? You still want to avoid "the anomaly of an assembly refusing to elect anyone to" fill the vacancy.

RONR says that only members of the body that is meeting have the right to attend a meeting. Depending on what type of body this is (eg: a governmental body, Trustees of a public or charitable body, etc), there may be laws that say differently; for example boards of Trustees of school boards in Ontario are required by law to have meetings open to the public. There are many other examples of Open Meeting or "Sunshine" laws. If any apply to your board, then they supercede what RONR says.