George Mervosh

Not disagreeing with Mr. Brown and Mr. Katz but if this isn't a hypothetical question, what happened after he left? Did anyone either become Secretary pro tem or simply take notes regarding any motions that were made after he left. Oh, and have you talked with him since to see what's going on or if he will be presenting a draft of the minutes he took while he was there for your next meeting?

Mr. Gerber usually frowns on this since no one uses it correctly, except maybe the two of you.

Technically the motion could be adopted without the blank being filled but that's not going to be considered moving forward since the book says: " If by chance the motion is nevertheless adopted, the blank should be filled and the motion completed before any new subject (except a privileged one) is introduced" RONR (p. 167) The proposals to fill the blank can be reconsidered. Tinted pages 10-11, Motion 22. Also, the rules may be suspended to permit the blank to be filled by a plurality vote, then, if it's filled, the main question still needs voted on with a majority vote to adopt it. Perhaps the original motion could be withdrawn with the assembly's consent and presented in a different fashion as well. Others may have more creative options.

As Dr. Stackpole notes, yes, when it comes to motions to amend something previously adopted: "But if a motion to Rescind or to Amend Something Previously Adopted is amended so that the change proposed by the amended motion then exceeds the scope of a previous notice that was given, the effect of the previous notice is destroyed and the motion can no longer be adopted by a majority vote (see Standard Characteristic 7). When these motions require previous notice (as may be the case with respect to a motion to rescind or amend a provision of the bylaws or a special rule of order), such a motion cannot be amended so as to make the proposed change greater than that for which notice has been given. " RONR (11th ed.), p. 306

Does this resolution amend another motion that was previously adopted and is previous notice required?

We can't interpret bylaws here but perhaps this thread about voting for a candidate other than the one you nominated might help you interpret your rule. https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/33439-does-the-nominator-have-to-vote-for-hisher-nominee/

I've been hanging out with J.J. for far too long it seems.

"A record of the board's proceedings should be kept by the secretary, just as in any other assembly; these minutes are accessible only to the members of the board unless the board grants permission to a member of the society to inspect them, or unless the society by a two-thirds vote (or the vote of a majority of the total membership, or a majority vote if previous notice is given) orders the board's minutes to be produced and read to the society's assembly. " RONR (11th ed.), p. 487

Making a nomination isn't your traditional motion, but you may vote against the person you nominated: " In debate, the maker of a motion, while he can vote against it, is not allowed to speak against his own motion." RONR (11th ed.), p. 393

I guess my concern is, if the allegation isn't as clear cut as the guy not meeting the residency requirements, how does one defend themselves against such an allegation of a current violation of the organization's bylaws, or is he not entitled to such a defense other than perhaps he and one other appealing a well taken point of order? But you may be right because I see your point about the timeliness.

Procedural rules in statute always prevail. I don't think anyone would argue that the adoption of a motion to amend the bylaws related to officers could eliminate or remove the current officers simply by its adoption. But I see a distinction between that act and an allegation the current bylaws are being violated in some way by a person who holds office to which he was properly elected to and leaving it up to a point of order to remove a sitting officer.

Yes, of course, but I respectfully disagree with Mr. Brown that declaring the position vacant is a proper procedure under the rules in RONR.

Because I don't see anything in RONR to support any other method given that the election to office was valid when it occurred.

Or, by moving to rescind the election in this case, yes, in my opinion. ""If the chair is not an appointed or elected chairman pro tem, a motion to declare the chair vacant is not in order. " RONR (11th ed.), p. 652 "A permanent removal of the presiding officer, and removal of authority to exercise administrative duties conferred by the bylaws, requires the procedure described below." p. 653 and the passages that follow that.

I thought the only way to remove an elected officer via a point of order which is well taken or not well taken but upheld on an appeal was in the case that the officer was not eligible to hold the position when he was elected, even if he became eligible after the election was completed, not vice versa.

Remind me why the rules cannot be suspended to permit a plurality vote in this case? (not rhetorical)

I see you haven't been to too many 2FP committee meetings. Standing becomes quite challenging after a few rounds.

I certainly agree the assembly should decide and the bylaws should be as clear as possible, but the problem of which committee a task should be assigned to isn't always black and white as evidenced by what is said in RONR on pp. 173-174 (especially #4 on p. 174). Sometimes the water is cloudy.

"REFRAINING FROM SPEAKING AGAINST ONE'S OWN MOTION. In debate, the maker of a motion, while he can vote against it, is not allowed to speak against his own motion. He need not speak at all, but if he does he is obliged to take a favorable position. If he changes his mind while the motion he made is pending, he can, in effect, advise the assembly of this by asking permission to withdraw the motion (pp. 295–97). " RONR (11th ed.), p. 393

See FAQ #12 http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#12

If the resignation has been acted upon it may not be rescinded. RONR (11th ed.), p. 308 If it has not been acted upon see http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#18

"Rules protecting absentees cannot be suspended, even by unanimous consent or an actual unanimous vote, because the absentees do not consent to such suspension. For example, the rules requiring the presence of a quorum, restricting business transacted at a special meeting to that mentioned in the call of the meeting, and requiring previous notice of a proposed amendment to the bylaws protect absentees, if there are any, and cannot be suspended when any member is absent." RONR (11th ed.), pp. 263-64 So all 14 need to be there so that there are no absentees to protect, and the rules may then be suspended to consider the proposed changes. I hope the quorum number is one of the things you're changing.

Once the business at hand has been dealt with, the board can either adopt a motion to end the executive session portion or simply agree to it by unanimous consent (which seems the simplest way).

No, a rule regarding travel reimbursement may not be suspended under the rules in RONR. If the membership takes such an action you will need to raise a point of order (hopefully immediately, but any time will do ) in a regular or properly called meeting with a quorum present.

Most rules in the bylaws may not be suspended. Can you tell us exactly what the rule is?