Gary Novosielski

And what if the purpose of Committing a question arose from a majority belief that the interests of the society were best served by keeping this particular question alive even past such an adjournment. Note that the sole purpose of moving it is to circumvent the rule.

I know it makes a difference in other ways, so I don't doubt it.

So am I, now that you mention it.

Yeah, that was a boomer all right.

Also bear in mind that if there is a rule that prevents him from holding both positions, then upon accepting the VP post it could be argued that his previous office term is automatically vacated, and would not count as a resignation. It seems to me that the rule was intended to apply to voluntary resignations, but that's just a guess.

No. If his resignation is actually necessary it can certainly wait until the result of the vote is announced.

They look numbered to me.

Probably even before that, since "swearing in" ceremonies are purely—well, ceremonial. The new member becomes a member as soon as the election results are announced, if the rules in RONR apply.

But when there has been a motion and a second that is the point where discussion begins, not ends. And the member who waited until the motion was adopted before raising the issue of debate waited too long. The time to raise a Point of Order was immediately as soon as the chair put the question, before voting had begun. Waiting until the motion was adopted means that a point of order would not have been timely.

And why is the text of the motion pre-entered on the ballot when discussion, debate, amendments and other things can modify the language before it's finalized?

The longer you've been doing it wrong, the greater the benefit of starting to do it right.

A ⅔ vote is not based on the number of members in the body. It is based on the number present and voting. If the number of Yes votes is greater than or equal to twice the number of No votes (with at least one Yes vote) then two-thirds of the votes are in favor.

The motion is Amend Something Previously Adopted, and if clear and specific notice was given in the call of the meeting (which is required for special meetings) the motion would require only a majority vote for passage. [See RONR (12th ed.) §9 Particular Types of Business Meetings] [See RONR (12th ed.) §35 Rescind; Amend Something Previously Adopted]

It depends on the "information" that came to light. For example, if people voted who were not members, that would lead to one answer, if people said things in debate that later proved not to be true, that would lead to a different answer. So please ask a specific question about your specific situation.

Flu? What flu?

Wishing you a speedy recovery.

I think it would violate this principle. Edited to add: Although, RONR does, in 44:1 mention that fractional voting is a possibility "in some conventions" without elaborating on how this might happen.

If a ballot vote is required by your bylaws, then moving to user a signed ballot would not be in order, as it would force disclosure of individual members' votes.

Yes, RONR says that special meetings that are not properly called, i.e., all members notified a reasonable time in advance, and containing a description of the business to be conducted are not valid meetings.

Well, that's yet another issue. A meeting that was not properly noticed is not a valid meeting. But it doesn't change the answer that voting outside a meeting because the chair called you up is not a thing.

The two most common methods of counting yield identical results so it really does not matter. If today is Friday, and a rule says that something must be completed within seven days, there are two ways of counting: Today is day zero, and the seventh day is next Friday; or, Today is day one, and after the seventh day, the next day (not counted) is Friday. Either way, within seven days means no later than next Friday.

No.

Yes, it is self-described as a book about Robert's Rules of Order. The difference is the same as between skydiving and a book about skydiving.

Yes, the power to "appoint" a committee means the right to name the members (and presumably designate the chair). It does not imply the power to establish new committees.

Surely you're not suggesting that it is a crime to enjoy something once it has been misspelled.