Atul Kapur

Yes, but the mover (of the main motion) still had two chances to speak against the amendment that, presumably, caused them to change from supporting the main motion to opposing the main motion as amended. So there was an opportunity to try to "persuade a majority to agree with him." I'm not necessarily arguing in support of the rule that the mover cannot speak against their motion, but applying the logic if you accept that it is the way it is.

The mover of the main motion had the chance to persuade the majority to agree with him. That was during the debate on the amendment.

The motion to rescind is out of order "When something has been done, as a result of the vote on the main motion, that is impossible to undo." If the contract has not been signed, it sounds like it is still possible to undo the decision.

I think it's more accurate to say that RONR requires "repeated balloting until one candidate . . . attains a majority." (45:69) "a new election" implies that there would be another opportunity for nominations. At least, it does to me.

The general rule is that "The power to appoint or elect persons to any office or board carries with it . . . the power to fill any vacancy occurring in it, unless the bylaws expressly provide otherwise." RONR (12th ed.) 47:57 But I agree with Guest Puzzling that you definitely need to check what the bylaws say.

If someone "brought embarrassment to organization" that sounds like they did something "tending to injure the good name of the organization" (61:3)

Nevertheless, the goal of moving to rescind is solely to defeat an adopted motion (the assembly may amend rescind, but the mover's intent in moving rescind is to rescind). This is not necessarily the goal of moving to reconsider, so the motion to rescind should not be ruled out of order, which was the question I was responding to.

No. The motions have different purposes. As well, there may be a variety of reasons why the assembly may wish to, later in the same session, rescind a motion adopted earlier. This is not necessarily true. Reconsider may be moved and adopted for other reasons than to defeat an adopted main motion.

The chair cannot ignore a motion but the chair has the duty to consider whether it is in order before stating it and putting it out for consideration. Not following your bylaws in the past is not an accepted justification to continue not following them.

Almost. If a motion to reconsider was already made and disposed of, the motion to rescind can still be made the same day. The only time reconsider prevents the making of the motion to rescind is when the motion to reconsider was not considered at the time it was made. In that case, the motion to reconsider can be called up and, in that case, rescind would be out of order. RONR (12th ed.) 37:15 and 35:6(a)

You can hold votes in executive session, at least under RONR (See 9:24-27). An executive session means that the proceedings of that part of the meeting are secret. "The general rule is that anything that occurs in executive session may not be divulged to nonmembers (except any entitled to attend). However, action taken, as distinct from that which was said in debate, may be divulged to the extent—and only to the extent—necessary to carry it out." RONR (12th ed.) 9:26 So you can conduct a vote in executive session. However, you may need to have another vote on whether to publicize the result of the first vote. So another way of asking Mr. Novosielski's question is, "Why are you doing this (discussion and/or vote) in executive session?" Many public bodies are subject to "sunshine" or open meeting laws, which restrict what they are allowed to do in executive session.

Not just the member in question, but all members with that specific status will now have to pay dues. If the intent is that current members with that status remain exempt from dues and that dues are expected only from members who are granted that status after the bylaws are changed, then you will need to adopt specific language to make that happen, either in the bylaws or a proviso. If that is the intent and you have such a proviso, then the important date for the member in question is the date that the member is granted that status; the date of the request is immaterial.

Sure, it seems like a reasonable argument to me. However, I'm not the one you need to convince. You need to craft an argument that the members will understand and agree with. After all, they are the ones who will decide whether your argument carries the day or not. So you should be testing it on fellow members who you are close with and see what they think.

You won't find an answer in RONR because RONR only recognizes one class of member, that with all rights of membership. RONR (12th ed.) 1:4 Therefore, your club will have to resolve any ambiguity in your own bylaws. 56:68(1) Once the decision is made, you should amend your bylaw to include the clear answer.

Do you mean 50:13(c) ? The provision making the appointments subject to approval would seem to be equivalent to the chair nominating the members, which is item C in that paragraph and which matches your description of the process.

Most likely, this is about something that shouldn't be in the minutes at all. So the best option may be to delete the contentious details. You vote on any proposed correction. A majority vote is required to adopt any proposed correction. It is a motion to amend, yes. You record that the minutes were approved as distributed/read or that the minutes were approved as corrected. The actual correction is made in the minutes themselves. Only if it was a recorded vote.

It depends on how that person was appointed to the position (including by what person or body), the bylaw language on their term, and perhaps any disciplinary procedures in your organization. These details are all unique to your organization. The general rule is that "Unless the bylaws or other governing rules provide otherwise (see 50:14, 62:16), the appointing authority has the power to remove or replace members of the committee" RONR (12th ed.) sections 13:23.

To pick a nit, a question that can be reached by calling up a motion to reconsider that has already been moved cannot be rescinded. I know that this is inherent in J.J.'s use of the term "calling up" but I think it is useful to make explicit here because I see this commonly misunderstood as meaning that rescind cannot be moved if it is still possible to make the motion to reconsider.

Another option for this situation is to see if the mover would request to withdraw the motion. It may be strategic for the mover to do so if the sense of the meeting is that it will get a more favourable hearing at a later meeting, and explaining this to the mover may convince them to request withdrawal.

I agree with Mr. Brown and J.J. In particular, 9.15 (d) in the bylaw convinces me that the bylaw supersedes RONR.

The letters should be sent by the directors wishing to resign and most appropriately be addressed to the Secretary. The Secretary would then report that they've received a letter of resignation. There is no motion to "receive" correspondence, or a committee report, or anything else. Then the motion "That [name]'s resignation be accepted," is moved, seconded, considered, and voted on. The letters should be filed with the other official correspondence and records of the organization.

You don't say if the bylaws have any rules on how vacancies are filled. If you are incorporated, then there are likely rules in the law that applies to your organization that apply. If the law and your bylaws are truly silent, then RONR states that resignations must be accepted. It would probably be best to accept the resignations one-by-one and fill the resulting vacancy before moving on to the next resignation. You could start by having the board fill the one vacancy. It would proceed as follows, with each step being a separate motion. If you have X, Y, and Z who wish to resign and A,B,C, and D who are willing to step up: 1) Appoint A to fill the vacancy. 2) Accept X's resignation. 3) Appoint B to fill the vacancy caused by W X's resignation. 4) Accept Y's resignation. 5) Appoint C to fill the vacancy caused by Y's resignation. 6) And so on... This way, there is no "old board" and no "new board," and you avoid the risk of having fewer than three members on the board at any time. This can all be done at one meeting; it would be better to state in the call of the meeting that you will be considering resignations and filling any resulting vacancies. I would avoid the "informal action" route because the membership of the board will change with every resignation and appointment, so you would need to be very careful about which board members' signatures you need on which written consent form.

Yes, he is the vice president until his resignation is effective.

24:3(2)(a) interrupts the cycle: "if a point of order is raised while an appeal is pending, there is no appeal from the chair’s decision on this point of order, although the correctness of the ruling can be brought up later by a motion covering the case;"

My understanding is that the Mover can vote against his motion but cannot speak against it. Guest Brad Perot, the point is that there is no assumption on how the Mover or the seconder will vote, so they will need to vote or abstain when called upon.