Atul Kapur

Here's what RONR says, on page 347, lines 22-29. Emphasis added

What is your question, specifically? Please explain the situation more clearly.

My comment was intended to build on Mr. Mervosh's post about having a minutes approval committee or delegating authority to approve minutes to the board. You are correct that the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted (ASPA) doesn't cause the minutes to be approved. It serves to make corrections to previously approved minutes, whether they were previously approved at a membership meeting or by a minutes approval committee or board. From your other posts, it appears that the board has taken on the function of approving the minutes of your membership meetings. You state that they claim that they were given this authority by the membership. You will need to check the minutes of that meeting to see if that is actually what happened. If so, then the motion to ASPA becomes relevant because it does give you a way to amend minutes that were approved by the board if you, for example, wanted to strike out the irrelevant information. If they were never given this authority but just grabbed it, then re-read Mr. Katz's latest post, above.

The motion to Reconsider can be made if the various conditions are met. If not, the motion to Rescind can be made. I don't understand your use of the word "quorum." I assume that there was and is a quorum when the motion was originally adopted and when you are trying to reverse that decision.

I recommend that you don't try to memorize rules but, rather, try to understand the principles. A committee is not a deliberative assembly. A deliberative assembly keeps records of its actions, which are motions. That record is the minutes. A committee, on the other hand, does not take actions but makes recommendations to the deliberative assembly. It doesn't need to take minutes to keep a record of that, since the committee's report and recommendations are the record of what the committee did. Hope this helps. No. And the rest of your questions become moot.

No, you didn't say that. I was just teasing you about your regular reminders of what is done with minutes and that there is no mention -- aaanywhere in RONR -- that minutes are "adopted." 😀

And, even after the board or committee (often called the "Minutes Approval Committee") has approved, the minutes, any member at any future membership meeting can move to correct them by using the motion Amend Something Previously Adopted (p. 475, lines 18-24). And, just for @Richard Brown, I will note that the motion is not to Amend Something Previously Approved. 😉

I agree with this analysis. Timeliness is not an issue here. Multiple errors don't obviate a breach of fundamental principles and rights.

Both. It would be a tie and it would be a "no go" because it did not meet the 51% requirement (and even if you were a larger organization, 50.6 or 50.9% wouldnt be enough -- there's no rounding in RONR). BTW, it is better to use the term "majority vote" than 51%. Majority vote means more than half and sometimes that's not 51%.

Weldon, that's not the problem I see. In the OP's situation, they are not yet decided on how many candidates to endorse. If they decide on the number ahead of time, then it is a simple matter of following the nomination/election procedure. But, as I read it, they want to hold off on making that decision until after at least one round of voting. Doing this in real-time is possible, if not easy. Mr. Elsman's suggestion is one option, for example. But doing this with a preferential ballot is a different matter, entirely, and I don't see direct analogies to the nom/elect procedures.

I'm going to side with Mr. Brown and respectfully disagree with Mssrs. Elsman and Merritt. This is a not unreasonable alternative, to endorse two candidates in the primary election. @Alex M., I can see many ways of doing this -- I am having trouble seeing how to do this along with a preferential ballot. Every system you choose will involve some trade-offs. Your organization should discuss these trade-offs and decide on their preference. The options, and their trade-offs, are too numerous and detailed to get into here. However, one example is that the major disadvantage of the preferential ballot -- that voters must make their decisions on subsequent rounds of voting without knowing the results of previous rounds -- is exacerbated because voters are now being asked to decide on an entirely different question -- whether to endorse two candidates instead of one -- in advance, without knowing the results of the first round of voting.

For the sake of argument, it may still be timely to demand a recount of the ballots.

And also to recognize that when one strays away from RONR, one is likely also making many assumptions that may or may not be true in the questioner's situation and therefore may very likely be inaccurate or misleading. Or just out-and-out wrong.

The language in RONR specifically uses the masculine, so I'm wondering where you get the idea that there is a sexist origin to the rule?

but you tell us that bylaw amendments (same as changes) require a 2/3 vote by ballot. So did you actually properly adopt a bylaws amendment?

I'm wondering if Guest Emily is with an organization that adopts the agenda for the meeting and is asking about amending the proposed Agenda itself when it comes up for adoption?

I agree with the answers you have received and, in fact, asked your second question many months ago and never did get an answer. If I recall correctly, the board report would usually be given by the secretary rather than the chairman of the board.

RONR only says that non-members can be officers unless the bylaws say otherwise. No legal advice given here.

Generally, during a meeting, the only officers necessary are the presiding officer and the secretary. As you noted, if the president is absent, the vice-president fills in. (Temporary Occupants of the Chair RONR 11th ed., pages 452-54) Why do you need a vice-president during the meeting? In other words, What particular duties does the vice-president have during the meeting that need to be done? If any particular officer does have duties during the meeting, then yes, you should include in your bylaws or special rules of order who will perform those duties in their absence. Normally, if the secretary is absent, the meeting should elect a secretary pro tem for that meeting (RONR 11th ed., p. 459-60)

This is a term I often see in statute. Almost always, there is a list of definitions at the beginning of the statute. If you don't see a definition in your bylaws, check the applicable statute.

Thanks for sharing that story. I only had the pleasure of meeting him once, at an AIP practicum. He was immensely knowledgeable, very happy to teach and share that knowledge, and a very nice man. I am sure his name will be invoked every time a questioner asks about electing co-anything.

The standard answer is that you are asking us to interpret a law and that is not what we do here on this forum. I concur with Mr. Brown.

This is true. Likely, the bylaws also say that amendments can only be considered at the annual meeting.

Would you allow those comments during the original discussion of the motion? If you would, then they are in order during discussion of rescission. For what it's worth, I think the topic of whether or not the organization should be designating official foods at all is germane to a motion about designating an official fruit. I think it would be way too narrow to limit the discussion just to whether or not bananas should be the official fruit. But the decision is up to the presiding officer, subject to appeal to the assembly.

Once the minutes are approved they stand as the record of the meeting. So what would be the purpose or benefit of keeping the rough notes? I don't see any, myself.