Atul Kapur

Even if they are using cumulative voting, the number needed to elect is 26 (majority of the 50 delegates who voted). If more than 3 candidates receive a majority vote, those with the largest number of votes are declared elected. Yes and yes. By the way, not that it's important in this case, but a majority of 150 is 76, not 77.

In my opinion, no. Remember, there is nothing to be rescinded (unless your bylaws say that someone can resign by sending a letter to the corresponding secretary). The president sent a letter withdrawing their request to resign. So your board would have to vote to accept the resignation which has been withdrawn. If that sounds like an absurdity, that's because it is.

Unless your bylaws say otherwise, it does not sound like the resignation actually occurred, because it had not been accepted. Therefore it was withdrawn before the vacancy occurred. There is nothing to rescind.

"Except in matters placed by the bylaws exclusively under the control of the board, the society’s assembly can give the board instructions which it must carry out, and can rescind or amend any action of the board if it is not too late (see 35)." (RONR 11th ed., p. 483, lines 9-13. Emphasis added)

I don't think that, based on what you told us originally, you need to Reconsider (or Rescind). You said that the motion was defeated by the Executive Committee. So - Any member of the Executive Committee can make that same motion at the next meeting of the Executive Committee. This is called Renewal of the motion. (RONR 11th ed., pages 336-342) and is allowed because the next meeting of the Executive Committee is a different session. OR - Any member of the organization can make that same motion at a membership meeting. At that membership meeting, it can be raised in debate that the Executive Committee considered and defeated this motion, and the reasons why, but the membership meeting does not need to rescind or reconsider anything done to this motion at Executive Committee. I make no statement on whether this motion is a good or bad idea, just on the process.

Well, if you wanted to ensure that everyone goes through the same process, your bylaws could eliminate floor nominations all together. I mention this to underscore the point that your bylaws can vary completely from RONR if the association wishes. Please note that the bylaws committee could not recommend that as an amendment to this proposed bylaws amendment. It would need to be a separate proposal.

The chair could say, "The assembly will stand at ease." Or words to that effect.

Your Department's right to interpret its own bylaws means that it's your department that determines whether there is a breach. So there is really no difference. To put it another way, in the hopes of being clear, if you think there's a breach but the department votes against your point of order, where would -- or even could -- you take your appeal?

And, to be clear, these draft minutes should still be presented for approval at your next meeting. And, as stated above, please start a new topic even if the questions are similar.

Can members request an AGM? Actually you're asking if members can call a special meeting. The answer to that is in your organization's bylaws, and if they can the bylaws should also tell you what is required to call a special meeting. Can the members vote a member of the board off before their term expires? Same answer as above. If the employees are not members, they can do neither of these things. Employees have other ways of enforcing their rights and expressing their complaints, that are beyond this forum. In this case, that may or may not include directly communicating with the membership, which it sounds like you were asking in your last sentence.

Well there's your problem: You're assuming that there is logic involved.

Well, it appears that a majority of the meeting did not want to discuss it, as it passed. This is within its rights: "regardless of whether business is pending, a majority should not be forced to continue in session substantially longer than it desires" (p. 233, lines 24-26) So the answer to Q2 is "pretty much," but see next paragraph. Answer to Q1 is No, unless (a) a motion to Fix the Time To Which to Adjourn is pending, or (b) the Chair believes it is being renewed for obstructive purposes (p. 240, lines 12-27), or (c) the Chair rules that the motion is out of order for another reason (p. 39, lines 8-11) "In principle, the chair must state the question on a motion immediately after it has been made and seconded, unless he is obliged to rule that the motion is out of order or unless, in his opinion, the wording is not clear." and see lines 12-16 for more on why motions would be out of order.

If the search committee was appointed by the executive committee then it reports to the executive committee and not a membership meeting. So the committee cannot make recommendations to the membership meeting. An individual member can, at the membership meeting, make the motion to eliminate the position. By the way, there is no action to rescind because the executive committee defeated the motion. By doing so, they took no action and the status quo was preserved. You used the word decision as if the board was deciding between two possible options, each of which would constitute an "action" that could be rescinded. They were actually deciding whether to make a change or not. Only making the change would be an "action". As an analogy, if I am deciding whether to get my sorry self out of bed and I defeat that notion, no action has been taken so there is nothing to rescind.

The citation seemed to be an allusion, but thanks for confirming that I didn't miss anything. So, to wrap things up (for me, at least): the motion at the local meeting to decide by plurality was in order and would have required a 2/3 vote to be adopted. If it was erroneously declared adopted on a majority vote (the OP did not tell us the vote), a point of order would need to be made in a timely manner. Thanks for the clarifications.

Thank you. The citation is to the section on Convention Rules and states "provisions which, in an ordinary local society or assembly, would need a two-thirds vote to be placed in effect for the duration of a meeting or session, or would require adoption as a special rule of order to continue in force from session to session (see 2)." Can you please help me locate another mention of the threshold for rules that would have effect for only the duration of a session for regular or special meetings (i.e., not conventions) and their threshold, as opposed to the requirements for a special rule of order as Mr. Novosielski has quoted above? Thanks.

What threshold would such a motion require to be adopted? I ask only because I see nothing in the OP to indicate that it received the vote required to adopt a special rule.

That presumes that an executive session is something other than a meeting. We're not going to resolve this tonight between the two of us. I look forward to others opining.

I agree and so does RONR ("Rights carried with the honor include the right to attend meetings..." p.463, lines 21-22.) Executive sessions are part of those meetings. Please cite the reference/rule that says there is an exception to this citation for honorary members as it applies to executive sessions.

Let's set aside the issue of advancing a motion and focus on the right to participate in discussion and debate. I do not see any reasonable opinion that the ex-officio member can be excluded from the executive session without infringing their right to "participate in discussion and debate ... in connection with any matter considered by such committee or board." "Any matter" includes those matters discussed and debated in executive session.

Were there enough uncounted votes that they could have changed the result? Usual note for HOA's that there is likely legislation that applies to the HOA; if says something different than RONR, the legislation would supercede.

I haven't previously heard the term "advance any motion." Does mean moving or seconding a motion, or does it have another definition? I would answer, "Yes" and, if you read just the bolded portions of the sentence above, I think it's unambiguous: "Ex officio membership ... entitles such member to participate in discussion and debate, ... in connection with any matter considered by such committee or board." The use of the unqualified term "any" would include matters considered in executive session.

Just to complete the answer, because it's a community association.

IF the officer is a member of the organization, then the officer has all the rights of a member at membership meetings. This applies to the named officers as well as the directors. (officers do not have to be members. Some associations, for example, appoint an employee such as the manager or executive director to be the Secretary) So I don't think you give up any rights by being Secretary. Similarly, if the officers are members of the Board, then they have the same rights as any other members of the Board. Check your bylaws to see exactly who is a member of the Board. This should help answer your quorum question. The only officer who gives up some rights is the Presiding Officer, who usually does not move motions and only votes if their vote would affect the results. Assuming that the Secretary is a member of the board, Yes and Yes.

I agree, neither of them are relevant to the point that was being made: they are the rules (or laws) of the society, whether every individual member of the society directly benefits from every use of the funds or not. Hopefully, our agreement on that point will prevent this thread degrading into a discussion about ACA.

Yeah, well, I don't have any children and I still pay taxes for schools. The point is that these are the rules of the society you are a member of and -- as it sounds like the rule was properly adopted -- if you still want to be a member of the society you need to follow those rules. You mentioned "legally" in your original post. Feel free to consult an attorney but I don't see what law has been broken. {I am Not a lawyer. This is Not legal advice} All of this is in agreement with Mr. Katz's comments, by the way.