Shmuel Gerber

I like this.

They could say something like "All officer elections must take place by ballot vote except for any offices to which only one candidate has been nominated."

The member's comments may inform the board whether a motion should be made or seconded in the first place. So I don't see comments on a motion that doesn't get seconded as having been a waste of time. The comments may have persuaded the board members that the motion is unworthy of consideration. On the other hand, if non-board members are prevented from commenting on posted motions that are not made or seconded, they will have no opportunity (within the meeting) to persuade the board members that the motion should be made and seconded. It seems to me the current procedure is working as intended.

You have the names mixed up a bit. "35:1 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 (12th ed.) has two full paragraphs on this subject (21:14–15), which state in part: "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. … "When it appears that there is no further business in a meeting of an ordinary local society that normally goes through a complete order of business at each regular meeting, the chair, instead of waiting or calling for a motion to adjourn, can ask, “Is there any further business?” If there is no response, the chair can then say, “Since there is no further business, the meeting is adjourned.”" In addition: "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." (8:10) Also, if none of the above conditions apply, then as with most any action at a meeting, the assembly can decide to adjourn by the normal method for action by unanimous consent: "To obtain unanimous consent … , the chair states that “If there is no objection… [or, “Without objection…”],” the action that he mentions will be taken; or he may ask, “Is there any objection to…?” He then pauses, and if no member calls out, “I object,” the chair announces that, “Since there is no objection…,” the action is decided upon." (4:59)

Are you asking about what the bylaws should say, or a general question that has nothing to do with amending the bylaws?

Thank you, Jim, for noting the date and this interesting comparison. I think that to be accurate, it should be noted that the 176 pages of the first edition included the front and back matter. Therefore, the comparable page count for RONR 12 is actually 816 pages! (A factor of 4 times the original.)

No. Here is the entire 33:21: "The foregoing paragraph applies only to papers or documents that are not before the assembly for action. When any paper is laid before the assembly for action, it is a right of every member that it be read once; and, if there is any debate or amendment, that it be read again before members are asked to vote on it. Except as just stated, no member has the right to have anything read without permission of the assembly. But whenever any member requests that a document that is before the assembly be read—obviously for information and not for delay—and no one objects, the chair normally should direct that it be read. If there is an objection, a majority vote is required to order that it be read. If a member was absent from the hall when the paper under consideration was read—even though absent on duty—he cannot insist on its being read again; in this case, the convenience of the assembly is more important than that of a single member." The sentence "If there is an objection, a majority vote is required to order that it be read." applies, even when a paper is before the assembly for action, except when it is the right of every member to have it read as stated in the second sentence.

You left out the sentence "Except as just stated, no member has the right to have anything read without permission of the assembly." That is what the majority vote requirement refers to.

See RONR (12th ed.) 41:61–63.

How did the errors get into the bylaws document to begin with? If the organization actually adopted the misspelled version, then the organization needs to agree to any corrections. But if the errors got there because someone did a bad job of retyping bylaws that had already been adopted, then I think the secretary could correct the errors (i.e., by restoring the originally adopted spelling found on an earlier correct copy), although it might be a good idea to obtain authorization from the membership to do so.

So does stating that a member wants to extend the meeting until 10:30 so we can complete the next agenda item count as debate or not? I think your entire acid test devolves to the meaning of "delve into," because clearly the purpose of making these brief remarks is to persuade members that they should vote for the motion on its merits.

This thread (started in 2013) is getting to be only slightly less old than the practice of casting a ballot on behalf of the assembly. It's still a good read, though.

Do you have a question about this in relation to parliamentary procedure?

But at a special meeting, any motion relating to the purpose of the meeting can be considered; it doesn't have to be a particular motion for which notice is given. A motion to Reconsider might be made, for example, for the purpose of offering an amendment to an adopted motion, or for the purpose of considering again one alternative that was defeated earlier in the meeting, after the assembly is unable come to agreement on any other alternative.

You gather correctly. 🙂 I don't know if I understand your reasoning, but in any event that rule you refer to is a very specific one, and I don't think it is easily extended even to other cases where the same or similar reasons might apply.

I agree. The existence of the motion acts as a sort of extra quorum or extra notice requirement, which is why I think its effect cannot be suspended by a two-thirds vote. I am having trouble seeing how the fact that a quorum exists or that notice of the meeting or of the main motion has already been given would change how the motion to Reconsider and Enter works. If the rule preventing taking up the motion the same day could be suspended by a two-thirds vote, the protection afforded by the rule would essentially be lost in many cases.

Suspended how, and by what vote? The rule allows any member* (with the help of a seconder if required) to delay the final vote to another day, so wouldn't that member's consent be necessary to suspend the rule? *who voted with the prevailing side

I don't understand how the fact that this is a special meeting is relevant. There could still be members absent who would want the opportunity to affect the result by attending on another day if they knew that an unrepresentative number of members are present on this day. The rules relating to a quorum apply equally to a special meeting as to a regular meeting, so I would think the rules relating to Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes apply equally to a special meeting as to a regular meeting as well.

The fact of whether it is a continuing breach is not relevant. There's at least some point at which it will be timely to raise a point of order that the meeting is invalid because it was not held within the time frame specified in the bylaws, and in resolving that point of order the question of absentee rights versus other rights will have no bearing.

This is circular reasoning. As Mr. Martin has noted, if the 60-day notice provision is inoperable because a different provision of the bylaws applies to the case, then there is no breach of the bylaws at all -- let alone a continuing breach. The principle of interpretation you are stating, that a provision of the bylaws that embodies what would be a right protecting absentees must prevail over all other conflicting provisions, seems to be something of your own invention. P.S. In general it would be helpful to quote at least part of the reply that you are replying to.

Which principle of interpretation does this statement accord with?

I was wondering how long until somebody filled the blanks. 😀

If you are making a (relevant) point, I am hard-pressed to figure out what it is. How do you explain this paragraph: "27:2 There are also certain motions which must be divided on the demand of a single member, in which case a formal motion to divide is not used (see 27:10–11). The eight characteristics below apply only to the incidental motion for Division of a Question."

That doesn't change the fact that the member is demanding that the question be divided.