George Mervosh

It was postponed to a time too far and in my opinion can be taken up at the next meeting (assuming it is within a quarterly time interval of when it was postponed) without any motion to suspend the rules, but you must also follow whatever notice requirements you have. See http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_8

So it wasn't postponed until your next meeting, but one further out than that?

I don't get the notifications by email, it's supposed to notify me the same way a quoted back response does, if I'm not mistaken. Either way there is no notification from the website itself and I'd prefer not to get them via email.

I double checked my notification settings and it's set to receive notifications of all replies in a topic I post in but that feature still isn't working, just so you know. In this thread, Mr. Goodwiller's reply didn't generate a notification http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/30735-youth-league-board-member/ and in this thread Mr. Martin's reply didn't generate one http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/30734-removing-write-in-votes/

In addition to Mr. Honemann's comments, one rule from RONR to keep in mind as it might be applicable to your group: "If the bylaws require the election of officers to be by ballot and there is only one nominee for an office, the ballot must nevertheless be taken for that office unless the bylaws provide for an exception in such a case. In the absence of the latter provision, members still have the right, on the ballot, to cast "write-in votes" for other eligible persons." RONR (11th ed.), pp. 441-442

Yes. How your group's bylaws need to be compliant in requisite areas with your parent organization's bylaws isn't something we can know, but your organization just can't stop allowing write-ins without amending the bylaws. Perhaps it's best to consult with parent organization prior to making any change in your bylaws.

In my opinion the bylaws would have to be amended to prohibit write-in votes.

Can we start here? So any member can just walk in and say I'm on this committee? There's no appointment process (for example - either by the President or the membership)?

Without a quorum you can't do anything. Does is really say a quorum is five members or are you interpreting the wording of the quorum requirement to come up with the number 5?

At the next meeting you can raise a point of order, that the action taken is null and void since it violates the rule in the bylaws and may not be suspended. RONR (11th ed.), p. 251 a) and p. 263. If the point is not well taken (it should be) you can appeal but you'll need a majority to overturn the chair's ruling. If all else fails the membership can institute disciplinary proceedings against the board members who took this action (assuming the membership is actually going to have a meeting or meetings coming up to do this). Then of course, there's always the potential to pursue a legal remedy, but we can't discuss those things here.

Agreeing with Dr. Stackpole with regards to the need to ratify the actions taken, as the moderator you really must not let this happen again unless it's a true emergency.

If the member in question voted on the prevailing side, she could move to reconsider the vote, assuming she's willing to waive the secrecy of her vote and advise the chair she did vote with the prevailing side. If it's adopted you'll get the chance to change your vote, and so will everyone else voting.

I don't think a member can change his vote after the ballots have been collected.

Fishing season is over in the Bay already?

No. "In the event of fire, riot, or other extreme emergency, if the chair believes taking time for a vote on adjourning would be dangerous to those present, he should declare the meeting adjourned—to a suitable time and place for an adjourned meeting (if he is able), or to meet at the call of the chair." RONR (11th ed.), p. 86 "CASES WHERE THE ASSEMBLY CAN ADJOURN WITHOUT A MOTION. If an hour for adjourning a meeting within a convention or other session of more than one meeting has been scheduled—either in an agenda or program or by the adoption of a motion setting a time—no motion to adjourn is necessary when that hour arrives. The chair simply announces the fact and declares the meeting adjourned, as described for a recess on page 232. If the assembly does not then wish to adjourn, the matter is handled as a case of setting aside the orders of the day, as explained on pages 222–23 (see also p. 370). If such a meeting wishes to adjourn earlier, it is done by a main motion, which, however, can be adopted by a majority vote (see p. 234). The rules stated above regarding parliamentary steps that are in order after it has been voted to adjourn are applicable in this case also. " RONR (11th ed.), pp. 240-241

As long as your group follows whatever procedures are in your bylaws for amending them - including giving proper notice, no rule would prevent any or all of them from being considered. I doubt proposals that are 3 years old can come before your meeting without giving additional notice.

Yes, it will require whatever notice and vote it takes to amend the present bylaws.

RONR does not require it or recommend it.

Yes, quite true, but the privileged motion in question couldn't have had any of those motions apply. I'm heading to mine in about an hour. I'm not a "Fisherman" with all this free time to hang out at the Chapter. Oh and thanks to Mr. Troy, for the question.

Oh I think your thinking makes a lot of sense but your cited passage refers to a motion which was debatable to begin with and debate was ended via the previous question, or previously limited or extended. The privileged motion in question wasn't debatable at all. But that's all I have on this.

Well if this was the answer on my RP test I would have failed this question. I'm just not seeing how the status of the motion changed from privileged and not debatable (that's what I understand the motion was when it was made) to should be debatable, even though no other motion may be pending when a motion to reconsider is made. I'll await your further research, for sure.

Yes. For example, the very first member assigned the floor to debate (usually the maker of the debatable motion) can conclude his remarks by moving for the previous question. But it's just a motion and it requires a 2/3 vote to adopt, so it could easily be voted down if enough members feel there needs to be more debate.

So far no one.

" If the chair is in doubt as to who is entitled to the floor, he can allow the assembly to decide the question by a vote, in which case the member receiving the largest vote is entitled to the floor. " RONR (11th ed.), p. 382

See FAQ#1 (#1 because it's probably the most frequently asked?) http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#1