Shmuel Gerber

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Shmuel Gerber

  1. Michelle Card, the original poster, quoted the bylaws, which make RONR the adopted parliamentary authority. (Well, sort of; we'll overlook the fact that they say "Meetings of members and meetings of the Board of Directors shall be governed by ..." rather than the wording suggested in RONR.) Richard Brown pointed out that if e-mail voting is to be allowed, it must be provided for in the bylaws, but added: "However, you might have a lifeline: if your organization is incorporated or otherwise subject to state law procedural statues, such as a homeowner association, state law MIGHT permit absentee (or email) voting unless prohibited in the bylaws." To this, Gary Novosielski replied: I think it could be argued that adopting RONR as the parliamentary authority is effectively a prohibition against e-mail voting unless elsewhere permitted in the bylaws. and he later said he was assuming that the adoption of RONR would normally be done in the bylaws. So I took his original comment as an attempt to revoke the "lifeline" that Richard said may exist by statute, and that's why I said this branch of the discussion may not be relevant and couldn't be resolved here. And since in this case the bylaws are where RONR is adopted, the question whether e-mail voting could be authorized by a special rule of order if RONR is adopted apart from the bylaws is also moot. However, that is certainly something more amenable to discussion in the forum than the question about statutes that authorize e-mail voting unless prohibited in the bylaws.
  2. There's no indication that there is some statute in this case that authorizes the board to allow email voting, so I think this branch of the discussion may not be relevant (and probably couldn't be resolved here even if it were).
  3. Maybe the extra period is within some quoted text, such as a report for publication, adopted by the assembly, but the error is only in the minutes, not in the original report.
  4. I agree with all of that (hey, I did say "if…”), but I think the playing of the tape is significant to us here on the forum, since it apparently (maybe?) changed the OP's recollection of what really happened. What I wished to emphasize with my earlier response is that nothing can be inferred from a lack of an objection or from the failure of anyone to raise a point of order IF there was no indication that some action was actually taken to begin with.
  5. But if the chair failed to call for a vote, failed to obtain unanimous consent, and failed to announce that anything was adopted or rejected, then what was actually done? I'd say probably nothing, so the fact that no one raised a point of order that nothing was actually done would seem to be inconsequential.
  6. That's an interesting assertion, but wouldn't that also mean that the quorum at a given time (in an assembly subject to such a law) depends on what motion is pending? The idea of a membership that fluctuates based on what the pending question is isn't very amenable to me. And I don't see enough support for it in RONR to necessarily agree that it is correct, especially since the authors keep tinkering around with the definition of "quorum" from edition to edition. ☺️
  7. As long as you can still spell asma, you're probably alright.
  8. And he (or she) is entitled to attend the meeting, as well, and should definitely do that while presiding. ?
  9. I'm just waiting until someone tells me what to delete, 'cause I have no intention of reading this stuff. :-)
  10. Actually, it's not the vote for reconsideration that is called up, but only the motion to Reconsider. When the motion to Reconsider is called up, the chair states the question on it immediately, and it is open to debate (if debatable) and a vote. Only when the motion to Reconsider is adopted (if it is adopted) is the original motion then reconsidered. See RONR, 11th ed., pp. 316-317: "c) The making of this motion [to Reconsider] has a higher rank than its consideration; that is, the motion can be made and seconded at times when it is not in order for it to come before the assembly for debate or vote. In such a case it can be taken up later, even after it would be too late to move it in the first place. If the motion to Reconsider is introduced at a time when it cannot be taken up, the chair does not state the question on it as pending, but asks the secretary to record the motion as made and seconded. This temporarily suspends any action growing out of the vote it is proposed to reconsider. While a motion to reconsider the vote on a main motion has this status, a member can bring the motion before the assembly at any time when its consideration is in order. When he does this, he is said to call up the motion to Reconsider." And p. 323, lines 9-20: "If a motion to Reconsider that involves a main motion cannot be taken up when it is made, then . . . To call it up, a member obtains the floor and says, “Mr. President, I call up the motion to reconsider the vote on the motion … [identifying it].” No second is necessary, since the motion to Reconsider was seconded at the time it was made. When this motion is called up, the chair immediately states the question on it as pending (see Form and Example)." And the example on p. 331, lines 16-33: "If it is not in order to take up the motion to Reconsider when it is moved, the chair says instead: << CHAIR: It is moved and seconded to reconsider the vote on the resolution relating to ... The Secretary will make a note of it. >> He then continues with the pending business. When it is in order to call up the motion to Reconsider and a member wishes to do so, the member rises and addresses the chair: << MEMBER A (obtaining the floor): I call up the motion to reconsider the vote [or "votes"] on ... >> The chair proceeds: << CHAIR: The motion to reconsider the vote [or "votes"] on ... is called up. The question is on the motion to reconsider ... [etc.]. >>"
  11. Nobody can "take" the remainder of another board member's term. Whoever has the power to make replacement appointments can accept the resignation(s) and then appoint whoever they want to.
  12. You seem to be ignoring what RONR says about this on page 89, lines 26-30: "Some societies have frequent meetings for social or cultural purposes at which business may be transacted, and also hold a session every month or quarter especially for business. In such societies, the term regular meeting applies particularly to the regular business session."
  13. Of course. And in some organizations, there is a monthly business meeting every week.
  14. Richard, I agree with you. While what you've suggested is not the only solution, I think it is clearly the best, and probably the only good one, among those that have been suggested so far. Although renumbering an article is not necessarily considered an amendment to that article, I don't see any way around the fact that an amendment to the article that refers to those numbers would be an amendment. And to renumber the articles without amending the article that refers to them by number would be utterly confusing.
  15. What works for IV (IV-A) works for 9 (9A). And 8. And 23. And other numbers, etc.
  16. In this case, I thought the objective was to decide *all* the pending questions without a direct vote on *any* of them.
  17. You're supposed to get the little fish to snitch on the location of the big fish in exchange for their own release. (Or at least I'm told that's how they do it on the Canarsie piers.)
  18. I don't think that the publication of this Q&A in the National Parliamentarian has changed or will change anyone's opinion who had an opinion on your question, so I hope your other fishing expedition proved more bountiful than this one has done so far. Edited to add: Please excuse my not-quite-American grammar; I think I've been watching too many episodes of "Elementary".
  19. I don't see why not. ?
  20. What do you mean by "then"?
  21. They must have meant "directing the minuets." It's a common typo around here.
  22. "Ethical" has to do with ethics, while "moral" has to do with mores. Duh!
  23. I'm sure that some people have found such summaries useful during meetings. However, it's difficult to get them exactly right. This one isn't terrible, but as Mr. Goldsworthy points out, it is missing "Discharge a Committee," and I also agree with him that the "10 tricks" list is not appropriate for a tip sheet about parliamentary procedure. There are some other idiosyncrasies, too: "WIFLE" is not a standard part of the standard order of business, although RONR does note that some organizations have an optional heading for Good of the Order, General Good and Welfare, or Open Forum. The left column correctly notes that there are differing requirements for suspending the rules, depending on whether a special rule of order or a standing rule is involved, but the right-hand column shows simply "2/3." The 13 ranked motions do not indicate the vote required for their adoption. And the "bring-back" motions indicate neither the vote required nor whether they are debatable. "Division of the the Assembly" does not mean calling for a counted vote; it means calling for a rising vote, and it can be demanded by any member. A request for a counted vote can be granted by the chair, but it requires a majority vote for the assembly to order it if the chair doesn't want to.
  24. Yes, to lost motions -- and also killed motions (via Postpone Indefinitely or Objection to Consideration), but not motions that are withdrawn or that die for lack of being seconded.
  25. And when they're done voting and the motion to Suspend the Rules is adopted, some nitpicker will probably want to know when the votes will be taken on all the motions that were pending when this incidental motion was introduced. ?