Gary Novosielski

Perhaps, but it is undeniable that the opportunity exists exactly to the extent that it would if the participants were in a single room—because they are.

We do not need a bylaw to say so. But we have one. I understand that when something is included in the bylaws there is an assumption that it was placed there for a reason. However, it is my view that in this particular case there is insufficient evidence to support the validity of that assumption. This entire rule seems to be nothing but a restatement of rules in RONR that were stated (better) in the original. This happens with sufficient frequency that the purposefulness assumption is not one that can be unquestionably relied upon.

Yes, the term "simple majority" appears nowhere in RONR. Majority vote is the standard and well-known terminology. It means more than half of those present and voting, and is met whenever the number of Yes votes is strictly greater than the number of No votes.

There is no vote on approving last meeting's minutes, and so no motion or second is required. The chair calls for the reading of the minutes and asks if there are any corrections to the draft. If there are no corrections (or once there are no further corrections), the Chair simply announces that the minutes stand approved as read (or as corrected.) And by the way, it is not proper to let the minutes of an annual meeting go unapproved for an entire year. The assembly should move to appoint the board or a special committee to approve the minutes.

That's entirely a matter of what your bylaws say regarding the powers of the executive committee.

The president would be correct to say that the item passed with a 2-1 vote. Votes are either Yes or No. There is no third category of vote. Abstaining means not to vote.

No. That's the same thing.

This is just a cumbersome restatement of the rules already in RONR regarding a majority vote. Under such a rule all that is required for adoption of a motion is that the Yes votes outnumber the No votes (which is clearly not true in the case of a tie vote). The only exception is that this rule requires abstentions to be recorded. Presumably this only applies to recorded votes (i.e., roll-call votes) where each member's vote is recorded. There is no way to determine with certainty who abstained on a voice vote, for instance, even if abstentions are called for—presumably: Those in favor say Aye; those opposed say No; those abstaining remain silent.) Abstentions should be recorded as Abstain or Present, not as Yes or No votes. The language does not support changing an abstention to a Yes (or No). It only says that the person is "deemed" to "acquiesce" with the outcome, i.e. to be considered to assent with the outcome without protest.

Just to be clear, this is a special Board meeting? Or is the board calling a special Membership meeting?

Oversite is a slab or solid concrete layer laid over a prepared ground or as a base for flooring before construction. In contrast, oversight refers to an omission of something during a procedure. It also means "supervision or management." So, both words are correct but don't have the same meaning.

I don't understand how the chair would "naturally" decide. The chair's role is to facilitate decision-making by the assembly, not to make unilateral decisions.

The "current motion" is not proper. The current project was already approved. If you do nothing, it remains approved. Voting on whether to approve it now accomplishes nothing. Either it remains as is, or you have a sort of general recorded disapproval and no direction to proceed in from here. Discuss or debate what you actually want to do now. Then use the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted so that it says what you want it to say about the project. Or move to Rescind what's left of the project and start over from here on out, or don't start over. If there are contracts involved, RONR won't get you out of them, so be careful what you move. It's valid from a parliamentary point of view to violate a contract, but legally, not so much.

But that is the way that it is done in an in-person meeting. Without that it is not a deliberative assembly.

Presuming that this interest applies to him alone. If it is in common with other members, there is no problem

Of course. Otherwise how could a motion that is permitted to interrupt someone speaking be able to interrupt someone speaking. The fact that members can speak without being recognized is essential to raising a point of order. But they are not "permitted" to speak, except as the rules of order provide.