Weldon Merritt

Yes, that is correct. That's not quite the way it works. If the bylaws (or a statute) allow a decision to be made by the written consent of all members without a meeting, what typically happens is that the president notifies the board of a proposed action and requests their written consent. If they all give their written consent, the action is approved. if one or more of them do not give their written consent (either by explicitly denying consent or simply not responding), the action is not approved.'= I suppose that technically, nothing would preclude a member other than the president initiating the request for consent, but it would be highly unusual. I think it would be more likely that the member would request the president to do so. But either way, if all of the members give their written consent, the action is approved. No need for a motion at that time. As noted above, if the members all give their written consent, the action is approved, just as much as if a motion had been adopted at a meeting, so no need for ratification.

I thought so, too, but it seems to keep attracting attention from time to time.

Oh, now it makes sense.

Did you mean to say they "are entitled to have insincere votes"?

That's still not a heading in the standard order of business. What do you mean? Did the original motion have an effective date of a year later? That would be unusual, but not (IMO) out of order. But it's also irrelevant. Since it was laid on the table and not taken from the table within the required time, it is now dead. If you mean that the motion to Lay on the Table had a date attached to it, it indeed was improper. First, a motion cannot be laid on the table with a specific time for taking it from the table. The proper motion for doing that would be to Postpone to a Certain Time. But even if the motion were interpreted as a motion to Postpone, it would not have been in order because a motion cannot be postponed past the next regular session within a quarterly time interval.

I'm not Atul, but I'm confident that he was referring to Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes (the proper title of the motion I think Guest No quorum meant).

I'm not sure how common it is n bylaws, but it's not particularly unusual in nonprofit association statutes. In my view, it can be useful for handling noncontroversial actions, especially if there may be a time constraint.

That doesn't change the answer. While arguably, the member should abstain, under the rules of RONR, she cannot be compelled to do so. If there are likely to be a lot of issues of this nature, then arguably she should even resign. But again, she cannot be compelled to do so. Since we are talking about an HOA, there may be applicable statutes that bear on the issue. If so, those would take precedence over RONR.

Actually, I think both is required. Only the maker may request withdrawal (although another member may suggest that the maker do so), but the assembly must grant permission.

I disagree that it would be rude to interrupt and run off in that context. It would be rude if there were no good reason to do it. So apparently we have different definitions of what it means to be "rude." Let's look at a different example. Usually, it would be considered rude to boo the performers in a play. But in a melodrama, booing the villain actually is encouraged. In fact, I suspect if the booing is not boisterous enough, the villain will be disappointed and think his performance was somehow lacking in villainy. Different rules, different expectations.

That's exactly my point. By adopting the rules in RONR, the group has tacitly agreed that actions permitted by those rules, is not "rude" in the context of a meeting, whether or not the actions might be considered rude in another context. The group is always free to adopt its own Special Rules of Order disallowing something that otherwise would be allowed under RONR.

It is not. You may.

Discoverable by whom? If you mean are they discoverable in litigation (which I suspect is what you mean), that's a legal question that we can't answer on this forum.

In my view, no behavior is ipso facto rude. It is rude only if it is considered so within a specific culture or group. And sometimes the specific context also is important. There are countless examples of behavior that is considered rude in one culture or context, but not in another. Sometimes, omitting the behavior in the other culture may be considered rude. It seems to me that rather than railing against a rule that has long been an accepted part of parliamentary procedure, your efforts would be better spent in persuading your organization to adopt a Special Rule or Order banning the practice. I suspect if enough organizations did that, it might lead eventually to a change in the default rule.

I fail to see how using a tactic that is clearly allowed by the rules can be considered "rude." But it bears reminding readers that the rules in RONR are largely default rules. In most cases (including this specific example) an organization is free to adopt its own special rules of order to vary from the default.

I concur with Mr. Brown. The lesson: Pay attention! Or if you don't understand the motion, ask to have it repeated, or raise a Parliamentary Inquiry regarding the effect of the motion.

An interesting nuance that I suspect might frequently be overlooked.

I concur with Mr. Brown, with the caveat that if you are taking about a ballot for an election, it is not proper to even have "yes" and "no" choices. The only proper way to vote against a candidate in an election is to vote for another one.

As we often say here, it is up to each society to interpret its own bylaws, so my opinion is worth only as much weight as the society may wish to give it. But assuming there are no other provisions that could affect the quoted language, it certainly looks to me like you are correct.

Are you looking in the 12th edition? It became the current edition a couple of weeks ago. In case you don't yet have the 12th, the corresponding language in the 11th edition, at p. 408, ll. 9-13, is, "Interruptions during the taking of a vote are permitted only before any member has actually voted, unless, as sometimes occurs in ballot voting, other business is being transacted during voting or tabulating." Different wording, but essentially same meaning.

I concur with Mr. Brown.

RONR will give you no answer. So far as RONR is concerned, "the public" (i.e, anyone who is not a member of the school committee) has no rights at all in the meeting. Whatever rights you have are derived from the applicable open meetings law, and not RONR. So you will need to look at that law for the answer to your question.

Yes, that's correct, and I have now corrected the typo. So of course there is noting for Tomm to apologize for. If anything, I should apologize for the confusion caused by my "not" hole. I guess that was a prime example of what I meant when I said that "we all occasionally inadvertently use the wrong term."🙂

OK; we all occasionally inadvertently use the wrong term. But please note the second paragraph of Dr. Kapur's post: I, too, "think it's reasonable to move on," including with this conversation. It should be obvious to you by now that no one on this forum is likely to agree with you.

Since "dilatory, " by definition, means "tending to delay," it is hard to see how not conducting a counted vote could be more dilatory than conducting it. And if no one is willing to second a motion for a counted vote, then it would seem pretty apparent that no one other than the mover thinks the vote is "in question." If you think this really is a legitimate concern, you are free to move adoption of a Special Rule of Order requiring a counted vote on demand of a single member. I personally would not vote in favor of such a rule, if I were a member of your organization, but nothing is stopping you from proposing it.