Gary Novosielski

Yes, the use of "those present" in RONR is a form of qualification that affects the threshold. To difference is that when it's a certain fraction of "those present", then abstaining, although it is not a vote, has the same effect as a No vote. The recommended threshold in RONR is the unqualified form, simply "majority vote", "two-thirds vote", "three-fourths vote" or what have you. RONR does not use anything higher than two-thirds. So there's no need to change it, simply remove the reference to who is present. Then the default rule in RONR will apply, which is "of those present and voting." Then a person who does not wish to affect the outcome either way can abstain without being counted as if opposed.

Yes, except it should not require drafting any changes, but merely sticking to RONR and the bylaws.

Then I take my response back and revert to my prior response, viz. "The main motion has already been considered, and adopted. There is currently nothing to consider. " It is my view that the rule you are seeking to suspend is not, in fact, suspendible. In 37:47(2), we learn: "If it were not for the rule that the motion to Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes takes precedence over the regular motion to Reconsider, the motion to Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes would generally be forestalled by the regular motion, which would be voted down, and then Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes could not be moved." So if not for this rule, an unrepresentative temporary majority could render the REM motion inoperative, a situation it explicitly exists to prevent. And so would the ability to suspend the rule. It would render its inclusion in RONR absurd, and must be rejected as a valid interpretation. This section goes on to enumerate a number if situations where REM is not applicable and not in order. I suggest that this is an exhaustive list, and that absent one of those exceptions, the rule "gives any two members power to hold up action taken by a meeting." It therefore cannot be suspended in the face of opposition as large as those two. Those exceptions aside, the rule is quite clear that when REM is seconded, and found to be in order, the question is taken out of the reach of meetings on that same day,

The motion to Reconsider is not in order because the motion to Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes takes precedence. And the motion to Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes cannot be reconsidered.

Yes, that an odd sequence of propositions: It's in RONR? No. It's common sense? No. It's in the bylaws. Oh, really?

I'm not surprised, because "abstaining votes" are not votes. Those persons who have abstained have abstained from voting. If there are more Yes votes then No votes, a majority vote has been achieved. In the extreme case, one Yes vote with everyone else abstaining, is a majority vote. In fact, as there was no dissent, It also technically qualifies as a unanimous vote.

The main motion has already been considered, and adopted. There is currently nothing to consider.

I am having a hard time understanding how an Annual Business Meeting does not allow for the conduct of business. It seems to me than an Information Only Business meeting is an oxymoron. And if it were information only, the budget could not be approved at that meeting. Just because the leadership says that no debate will be allowed, this pronouncement should crumble before you can finish saying "Point of Order". And when one has the floor, or often when one does not, Requests for Information are in order. I also do not understand how the congregation could have already voted on a budget that has not yet been moved.

But there is no vote of any kind, high threshold or low. How do you propose moving to suspend the rules? Scenario: I move to REM, and it is seconded and recorded. I certainly am not going to move to suspend the rules that protect my motion. As I see it, it is now a done deal. It's entered. You can't move to reconsider the REM [37:9(2)(f)], you can't ASPA, you can't Rescind, so what's your next move? Unless you have anticipated this situation in advance and passed a special rule preventing REM, you're going to have to wait until the next day to do anything. No?

As I understand it, REM is not "adopted", it is simply moved, seconded, and entered on the minutes. There is no vote on whether or not it is entered on the minutes, so the question of vote threshold is not applicable.

The proper pronunciation of "You can't do that" is "Point of Order!" A meeting that was improperly adjourned is not adjourned provided someone raises a point of order at once. Then, If the chair simply leaves, calmly get a new presiding officer and carry on. That would be the vice-chair if you have one, or elect a chair pro-tem to complete the meeting. If the chair rules the point of order not well taken, Appeal that ruling and proceed as above. If the chair comes climbs down off the hissy fit and continues to preside, continue. But in any case, if the chair habitually demonstrates unfitness for the office, get a new chair. As far as that past meeting is concerned, yes, it is adjourned. As my father used to say, 'There is a lot of truth in what actually happens." See RONR (12th ed.) §23 Point of Order; §24 Appeal

Where did that come from all of a sudden?

No, it could not--not seriously. The non-member isn't even present. Any disturbance is due to the member who is present. In any case, to determine what the point of any meeting is, you'd need to ask whoever called the meeting.

I don't think anyone asserted anything to the contrary.

I'm not sure there was a point. But a meeting that simply excludes non-members is not automatically in executive session. Members-only is pretty much the default for meetings in RONR, but that doesn't necessarily imply that what's discussed there is confidential. If you want to hold a portion, or all, of a meeting in executive session, refer to RONR (12th ed.) 9:24-27.

Yəthink? 😏 I actually saw this in the US Senate once, on some razor-thin vote. McConnel was majority leader at the time, and they were voting on some bill he was opposed to. When he presumably "detected the hopelessness" of his position, and voting last, he voted in the affirmative. At first I thought I heard him wrong. The presiding officer announced that the question was adopted and started to say "the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table." McConnel objected and promptly moved to reconsider. I forget what ultimately happened.

Ah yes. In the double-secret X-12 edition of RONR it says: 37:37 If the maker of the motion to Reconsider fails to state which side he voted on, the chair, before making any other response, directs the member to do so: CHAIR: The member moving the reconsideration must state what his ultimate position (and penultimate position if any), will be in the event that the motion is reconsidered, and how he voted proximately on the actual resolution.

Note the bolded sentence. And note as well that the procedure referred to in 49:21 provides that seconds are not required in the first place.

I agree, but I would be inclined to approve such a record if Mr. X requested it. There are circumstances where such a request is actually in the nature of a demand.

They could submit the amendment as simply from two or more members, without needing any minority report. So I don't see that as abridging their rights.

If the motion is adopted, only a member who voted for it (the prevailing side) could move to Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes.

Failure to plan ahead does not constitute an "emergency". And to the extent that it does, it is one that is best remedied by replacing the failing officer. Those people may be well educated, but not in the realm of parliamentary procedure.

Unless the chair has some reason to rule the motion out of order, which does not appear to be the case from your description, No. In fact it could be argued that by "requesting" a motion to postpone, he was effectively entering into debate, for which he should first have relinquished the chair.

I expect you are correct. I should'a been more aware at 1:30 in the morning. Should'a could'a would'a; diïn't.

The use of passive voice make it hard to understand this rule. It seems to put the responsibility of being sent on the agenda itself. Who writes it, who sends it?