George Mervosh

My opinion was based upon this statement - " In the past we have just paused the meeting and continued when we returned. " . That seems to me they recess until called back to order by the chair, and this seems to be a common practice, but I see what you're saying.

Wait, you understood the other Gary's post more than this?

No. See RONR (11th ed) p. 572, ll. 2-4

Godelfan, aside from possibly being a bit unfair to the busy responders, do you see any parliamentary error in post #2? (Excluding my last sentence, of course)

In essence the meeting was in a recess and the assembly has every right to reconvene and continue the meeting and conduct business when a quorum is present, regardless of who is or isn't there. The rule that was proposed is not a good one,as you have noted.

So they can't un-pay the electric and gas bills and hold meetings by candlelight in front of a roaring fire until this mess gets straightened out?

You should vote right along with the others, not worrying about a tie vote or even/odd numbers on a committee. A tie vote defeats the motion that is being voted on, so there is nothing to break.

I don't think their rule clearly provides otherwise at all. In fact, unless the position is filled by an appointment by one person like the President, rather than an election, the rule really should say no notice is required, otherwise it must be given. so maybe this isn't a bylaw interpretation issue after all.

Per the citation, their rules clearly need to provide otherwise or notice must be given (Let's call that a Wilma). I don't think the copied rule clearly provides otherwise, but they might (let's call that Bam Bam).

So notice to the fill the vacant Treasurer's position was not required (p. 468, ll. 4-8)? I'm not sure their rules "clearly provide otherwise". This might be a bylaw interpretation question, as it often is around here.

After the committee reports, nominations from the floor are taken. All nominees, both from the committee and from the floor are listed on the ballot. The voter can then vote for up to 5 candidates. You might end up with a lot more than 8 people to choose from.

Since no one really took up Postpone Definitely until Dan did, it definitely does.

I'm sure it's not in the Deluxe edition either. Nor does it mention "should" in the sentence Sue is supposed to be referencing.

Your board can decide to use the rules for small boards if it wants to.

In small boards of not more than about a dozen members usually present, seconds aren't even required. Even if they are required in your case, it doesn't matter, the result of the vote stands.

Of course, I was just hoping she wasn't going to raise a point of order if she felt the vote required to amend the previous motion was achieved. She never mentioned it in any postings.

Do we know this is the case?

The procedure is for the chair to declare the minutes approved (or approved as corrected) after being certain no other corrections are offered, even if a motion such as that one was made, since no motion is necessary for their approval. In your case the chair essentially made certain there were no other corrections and declared the motion/minutes approved. No real problem there.

I'll just address this part. You don't. The minutes are record of what happened at the meeting, even if what happened might be a violation of the rules.

The cited text is not online. What is online is 102 years old, though much of it is timeless.

If the motion was actually pending when the meeting adjourned and your next meeting will be held within a quarterly time interval (pp. 89-90), the motion will be the first item of unfinished business at the next meeting. If it wasn't pending when the meeting adjourned and it just got passed over for other business, or the next meeting won't be held within a quarterly time interval, the motion will need to be made again if so desired.

Good, because that's all I was saying and it was in response to part of Mr. Anderson's post below: Plus,I tend to agree with Mr. Anderson's whole bolded sentence and share his reluctance to play Russian Roulette by taking action not mentioned in the original special meeting's call.

Unless you have some rule requiring it, the call to a special meeting need not include the fact the board may wish to enter into executive session. That motion can be made and dealt with right then and there. RONR (11th ed.), p. 93, ll. 3-8.

That was my reading of the original poster's second to last sentence. Looks like a two-step process there.

Assuming this notice didn't come from a bylaws committee, is it your opinion that the presiding officer should recognize the member who gave previous notice at the proper time so that he can make his motion?