Atul Kapur

Unless I am misunderstanding something, I don't see how "this motion shall require a vote of ___ for adoption" could properly be divided from the other part of the main motion it is attached to. It cannot stand alone.

I also find @Gregory Carlson's line of logic unpersuasive. The member was a member when the vote was cast. There is a world of difference between changing one's vote and having it deemed not to have been validly cast when it was made. In the OP's situation, many organizations that have voting over multiple days - and especially when voting is done by mail or electronically - set a date of record, so that members as of that date are eligible to vote. Since Guest ALF's group did not do that in advance, I recommend that if the question arises, they designate the day the polls opened as the date of record. And in the future make it explicit ahead of time.

I am saying that the motion in question does no such thing.

I agree that the board's authority is exclusive. Say that a motion to disqualify a member is made at a membership meeting. Even if it is adopted, the requirement in the bylaws has not been met.

I just quoted your words, but let's leave that be. Your line of argument appears to be that the assembly cannot impose any constraint on "call of the chair" beyond that which is already in RONR (the next regular meeting). There is nothing in the book to suggest, much less support, this assertion. This is a constraint, not a contradiction.

I agree with @TJM and @Josh Martin that the assembly is entirely within its authority to put a constraint on the call of the chair. As has been stated by at least one member of the authorship team on this forum, the book does not contain every possible example.

Under RONR, the minutes record what was done, not what was said. This is one of the reasons that meetings conducted under RONR are more efficient than those of the US Congress. However, RONR (12th ed.) 48:3 states "a majority vote may direct the inclusion of specific additional information in the minutes of a particular meeting." But be careful, as once you start this, it may start a stampede of others trying to do the same.

When is your next meeting, which is where the proposed amendment will be moved and considered? If it occurs before January 31, then the oral notice is sufficient if there was quorum at the October meeting. See 10:44-51, particularly 10:44 and 10:47-50 regarding how to give notice orally. How do your governing documents define quorum for your membership meetings?

Since this is an RONR forum, I can tell tou that RONR has no rule on this. Check if your group has rules on the election process and whether they give guidance.

Do your bylaws require that notice can only be given at the annual meeting? If not, notice can also be given in the call to the annual meeting: See 10:44 - 10:51 particularly the the first and last paragraphs.

If you are a 501(anything) then you are almost certainly incorporated and have Arricles of Incorporation somewhere, and most likely a constitution and/or bylaws. Start by looking for those. The government will have a copy, but you have to know which government you're incorporated in.

Check the laws that apply to your school board about notice, then your bylaws and other rules.

Is your organization incorporated?

Thank you, @Karen Luke, for providing this extra information. Based on it, it appears that your bylaws are silent and the parts of Mr. Martin's response that I've quoted here are applicable.

It sounds like this Section may provide insight into your current situation. Can you share it?

This forum encourages you to start a new thread for your question. That being said, these are two separate meetings of different bodies, so each would need to choose their pro tem person separately. They may very well choose the same person, but an appointment for one doesn't carry on to the next (as the appointment of a pro tem for the last board meeting doesn't carry on to the upcoming one).

You could, informally, bring this potential error to the nominating committee’s attention prior to them making their decision and report.

Agreed. Most of the school board bylaws that I have seen in this jurisdiction say that the vice chair presides over the CotW, rather than over closed meetings.

This refers to school boards (aka Board of Trustees) in Canada and, more specifically, Ontario. Why? Because that's what the law governing them says. It was a specific answer to @Janis Arnold because I recall she is involved with a Canadian school board.

Hi Janis, I believe that the school boards' rule derives from (a) the House of Commons, where the Deputy Speaker usually presides over Committee of the Whole, combined with (b) the fact that the Board itself is not allowed to meet in camera (= executive session) but CotW is, so many Boards understand the two terms (CotW and in camera/executive session) as synonymous.

If you're going to go to the trouble of changing the bylaws, you could change it to allow the Chair to alter the schedule, with proper notice. This is likely more practical than trying to predict a month ahead of time whether there will be any business for the next meeting.

The only thing that would resemble this in any way is unanimous or general consent. See RONR (12th ed.) 4:58-63, particularly 4:59 where the presiding officer may ask "Is there any objection to [the proposed motion or action]?" But if there is any objection (even just one), then the motion should be processed as any other, including the proper method of putting the question to a vote.

Just FYI, one province has that rule in the law for its city and town councils. I do not know their rationale for legislating it that way, which is the opposite of the rest.

Okay, but neither what Guest Michael Ropp nor @Bruce Lages describe violates that fundamental principle.

I didn't read anything in the OP to suggest that the motion was improperly laid on the table or that the intent was to postpone definitely to the next meeting. But, now that the topic of postpone definitely has been raised: the notice given originally is adequate for the postponed motion when it is taken up at the next meeting.