George Mervosh

Dan - With respect to making this motion, there doesn't seem to be any real difference between it and moving to reconsider a vote that was taken by ballot. A member is voluntarily waiving the secrecy of his vote in order to make it. I suppose technically even one of the 5 no voters could have had a change of heart and made this motion, unlike the maker of the motion to reconsider, in which case no one really knows how the maker of this motion voted. As long as the vote to make the previous decision unanimous is taken by ballot as required, how is anyone being forced to disclose their vote?

I know, just rambling a bit. but I think I agree with what VP J.J. has said so far, to be honest.

If this is correct, that, there can't be any no votes, one wonders, at what point is the motion a waste of time? Yeah, maybe the 5 will come around and vote yes, but I sure would not if I was one of the no votes. But of course my level of stubbornness might depend on what the exact original motion was.

By the time that comes out I'm not even going to care if it bites the dust in that edition.

The regular or deluxe edition, I wonder?

So your rule says he can cancel a meeting by providing a 10 days notice?

"Otherwise, an election may be contested only by raising a point of order. The general rule is that such a point of order must be timely, as described on page 250, line 30 to page 251, line 2. If an election is disputed on the ground that a quorum was not present, the provisions on page 349, lines 21–28, apply. Other exceptions to the general timeliness requirement are those that come within the five categories listed on page 251, lines 9–23, in which cases a point of order can be made at any time during the continuance in office of the individual declared elected. For example: • If an individual does not meet the qualifications for the post established in the bylaws, his or her election is tantamount to adoption of a main motion that conflicts with the bylaws. " RONR (11th ed.), p. 445 If your members weren't eligible to hold the position(s) at the time they were elected, you can raise a point of order. Whether it's wise to do so halfway through their term is another matter.

Agreeing with Dr. Stackpole, I disagree with nearly everything posted as a reason for wanting to do so.

The unexecuted portion of the previously adopted main motion can be rescinded or amended: "By means of the motions to Rescind and to Amend Something Previously Adopted —which are two forms of one incidental main motion governed by identical rules—the assembly can change an action previously taken or ordered. Rescind—also known as Repeal or Annul—is the motion by which a previous action or order can be canceled or countermanded. The effect of Rescind is to strike out an entire main motion, resolution, order, or rule that has been adopted at some previous time. Amend Something Previously Adopted is the motion that can be used if it is desired to change only a part of the text, or to substitute a different version. " RONR (11th ed.), p. 305 (but read the rest of the section for important rules including the vote requirement) Just making another motion on the subject isn't the proper way to handle it.

I've never heard of that on a roll call vote with two options. Very interesting.

That's correct, or they may abstain.

You should check with your school board's attorney. The attorney will know which voting method must be used.

There is no such phrase in RONR, for good reason. If it's in a set of governing documents you're reading that group will have to figure out what it means.

"A meeting enters into executive session only when required by rule or established custom, or upon the adoption of a motion to do so. A motion to go into executive session is a question of privilege (Section 19), and therefore is adopted by a majority vote. " RONR (11th ed.), p. 95 If the meeting is to resume without being in executive session a motion adopted by majority vote or unanimous consent to end the executive session portion will do the job as well. You should read RONR (11th ed.), pp. 95-96 for the entire brief passage on executive sessions.

I think the latter.

If she actually has the 4th Edition in book form, I'm buying you the biggest bottle of Beefeaters they make.

http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#5 Also, next time start a new thread. http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/25416-important-read-this-first-faq-and-information-for-new-members-and-guests/

From the footnote on p. 6 of RONR - "Members in good standing are those whose rights as members of the assembly are not under suspension as a consequence of disciplinary proceedings or by operation of some specific provision in the bylaws."

The time to debate the nominees is while nominations are open and in order. No member may speak about their vote while the actual vote is being conducted.

Nope. But if he wants to read the cited pages he'll get one.

See RONR (11th ed), p. 162ff for the use of the device, Filling Blanks.

No motion is needed. Once nominations conclude you can proceed straight to the election.

The answer to your question is, no. RONR limits a subordinate board's ability to discipline its members. Basically, all the board can do it is have a disruptive member removed from a meeting for causing the disruption. Here's what RONR says about it: " It may protect itself against breaches of order by its members during board meetings, and against annoyance by nonmembers, by employing the procedures outlined on pages 645–49, but the maximum penalty which may be imposed upon a disorderly member of the board is that he be required to leave the meeting room during the remainder of the meeting" RONR (11th ed.), p. 486. "It" is the board.

No organization does it more than NAP, believe me.

I'm a professor now? Want to award me a doctorate as well?