Atul Kapur

I wasn't there but have heard the story about Reconsider and Enter being spotted "in the wild" several times. I would argue that the threshold to adopt the rule suspension should have been higher than a 2/3 vote, specifically 90%, because the rule being suspended protects those on the prevailing side and, in this case, that was any group > 10%. SDC 7 of Suspend the Rules: "In any case, no rule protecting a minority of a particular size can be suspended in the face of a negative vote as large as the minority protected by the rule." (RONR 11th ed., p. 261, lines 15-17)

There still is the problem that you have to find someone who voted on the prevailing side to make the motion to Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes. So someone would have to vote insincerely to be able to make the motion to counter the improper use of Reconsider. Seems unlikely.

I believe that it is the rules themselves which are very different. Practice too, probably, but on a foundation of different rules.

I'm not sure how Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes helps the member who objects in the case of a motion that was adopted. In this situation, the chair has (improperly, you would say) accepted a motion to Reconsider immediately after the motion was adopted. In this case Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes would have the result of frustrating the prevailing side because it suspends the motion that was adopted.

Thanks. That is what I meant when I said

The nearest that RONR gets to this situation is during debate, where it is specifically prohibited, "Unless the organization has a special rule on the subject, a member cannot yield any unexpired portion of his time to another member, or reserve any portion of his time for a later time—that is, if a member yields the floor before speaking his full ten minutes, he is presumed to have waived his right to the remaining time.*" 11th ed., p. 388, lines 12-18. The footnote says, in part, "This rule reflects the traditional parliamentary principles. The House of Representatives has a different rule which permits control of all time by a single member or the leaders of the opposing sides of the question."

But, if votes for him are illegal and are recognized as such during the counting, then they shouldn't ever get into a situation where the results need to be contested. I also am not a fan of this way of proceeding. One other risk is that it may lead to an incomplete election if the organization requires a majority vote to elect.

I don't have the book in front of me, but isn't a vote for someone ineligible an illegal vote?

Which, by the way, is exactly the situation in Ontario, Canada, by way of an Executive Order under the government's powers under the state of emergency. It doesn't have to be a long or convoluted process. Has the OP looked into whether Pennsylvania has anything similar, which may give them a solution?

"If appointment was by the president acting alone . . . he may remove or replace committee members by his own act" (RONR 11th ed., p. 497, lines 11-13) and "Unless the bylaws or other governing rules provide otherwise (see pp. 497, 653), the appointing authority has the power to remove or replace members of the committee: If a single person, such as the president, has the power of appointment, he has the power to remove or replace a member so appointed" (RONR 11th ed., p. 177, lines 24-29) I don't have a solution for a president who won't follow and act to execute the decisions of the assembly. If you think that a bylaws provision will convince him to do his obvious duty, feel free to try it. Let us know if it works.

That's not the impression I get from pp. 475-476. The "proceedings" may contain a full transcript but it is not obligatory.

Under RONR, minutes should record what was done not what was said. Many political bodies decide to record more than that. They are free to do so, if they wish, but it is discouraged by regulars on this forum.

In fact, this member could even have voted against the motion that they moved. This is explicitly allowed in RONR 11th ed., p.393, lines 19-26. The only prohibition is that they cannot speak against the motion. Someone who seconds a motion does not even have that restriction on them. The explanation the member gave is an excellent example of when this rule is useful.

"By submitting a resignation, the member is, in effect, requesting to be excused from a duty. The chair, on reading or announcing the resignation, can assume a motion 'that the resignation be accepted.' ” RONR 11th ed., p. 291, line 6-9 That motion accepting the resignation is a variation of the motion Request to be excused from a duty, which is dealt with on pages 289-292. "The power to appoint or elect persons to any office or board carries with it the power to accept their resignations, and also the power to fill any vacancy occurring in it, unless the bylaws expressly provide otherwise. In the case of a society whose bylaws confer upon its executive board full power and authority over the society’s affairs between meetings of the society’s assembly (as in the example on p. 578, ll. 11-15) without reserving to the society itself the exclusive right to fill vacancies, the executive board is empowered to accept resignations and fill vacancies between meetings of the society’s assembly." RONR 11th ed., p. 467, line 25-35 So you need to check your bylaws to see what are the powers of your board to determine whether your board is empowered to accept the resignation and fill the resulting vacancy or whether you need to wait for a general meeting.

Assuming that RONR is your adopted authority, then I agree with Mr. Martin's comments, above. But please note that a majority of the trustees present could have, almost immediately after the meeting was called to order, voted to adjourn (aka close) the meeting. RONR 11th ed., p. 233, lines 24-26

In other words, RONR has no rules on what to do in this situation because it says not to get into this situation in the first place (it does not allow email voting). So, when you have a rule to allow voting by email, you should also have adopted rules on what to do in the various situations that may arise. Since there are no rules for this particular situation, then you are on your own. Perhaps your presiding officer could make a decision one way or another, which would be subject to review at the next meeting.

No. Adopting a motion that requires notice without such notice renders the action null and void, because it violates a rule protecting absentees, if there are any (RONR 11th ed., p. 251, lines 20-26 and p. 263, line 29 - p. 264, line 5). A Point of Order can be raised at any time. It no longer matters, because of the paragraph above, but if the only error was that the president spoke (that is, the motion was moved by a person eligible to do so and only eligible voters voted) then any Point of Order regarding that error would need to be made in a timely manner.

Note that he does not get any preference in recognition. I recall one instance where I was the presiding officer who vacated the chair and took my place at the end of the line at the microphone. The previous question was moved by the person in front of me and ordered by the assembly. Although this is exactly what happens if the President makes a recommendation as part of his report.

This raises the question of whether he has the right to speak at this meeting at all, other than as the chair. RONR only has one class of members, those with all the rights of membership. Do other members of his member association who are "not designated to cast the vote of his member association" have the right to speak and move motions?

While I agree with Mr. Mervosh that it's not a bad idea (as long as it doesn't contravene any open meeting laws that might apply to the board), I'm not sure that the citation applies to the situation. The citation refers to committee hearings to allow members of the society to provide input. The OP appears to be contemplating an informal meeting of the committee with the board to review the recommendations that have already been contemplated. Unless I'm missing something and am about to get educated?

No. There's nothing else to do with it. A defeated motion to remove language is not the same as deciding to keep the language. You've just decided not to remove it in that motion. There was no conflict with the motion that was adopted. There would only be a conflict if both motions removed the exact same language and no more. Perhaps the votersThe voters may have thought that just removing the small portion of language wouldn't be effective, so they voted against it. On the other hand, removing more language met their goal, so they decided to support that motion.

You made the changes that were in the amendment that you adopted. All of them. Ignore the 'failed' amendment. For example, first amendment says delete Section A, Paragraph 1 - it's defeated. next amendment says delete Section A, Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 - it's adopted. So you delete paragraphs 1, 2, and 3. It matters not at all that the first amendment was defeated. And, by the way, it was correct to consider both amendments (RONR 11th ed., p 594, lines 11 - 15) and to consider them in that order. (RONR 11th ed., p 593, line 35 - p. 594, line 5)

So you're saying you won't reconsider it? 😉

As I said, I personally don't like it as a tactic.

The challenge with this strategy is that, as there was enough support at the meeting to adopt the motion, it seems very unlikely that the same group would adopt a motion to postpone to a time when it would likely be defeated. One could still try it if one wished. While this has a higher likelihood of happening, as it only requires two members, it strikes me as a misuse of the rules to vote in opposition to one's true feelings I don't like the fact that one is required to vote insincerely. So I much prefer the strategy of moving to Rescind. It also has the virtue of not requiring a time machine, as the first meeting is now complete.