Gary Novosielski

I think he's talking about paper forms which one fills out and turns in, thereby submitting a motion in writing.

Presuming that the title assistant chair was chosen for a reason, in preference to vice chair, I would assume that succession would not be automatic. The replacement would be chosen by the BOD if it was the BOD that appointed the former chair, or if the bylaws say so. Otherwise, whoever chose the previous chair would choose the replacement.

Possible, perhaps, but an abomination certainly. Some tried and true phrases include: A majority of the entire membership A majority of members present. A majority of members present and voting A majority vote. Note that the last two are synonymous.

False in the sense that, per the hypothetical, the report offered by some random member on his own initiative would not be a proper report of the committee.

No, he can't prevent the assembly from discharging the committee, but a well-prepared chair might know that the report from that committee is not yet due. I would also expect any other members of the committee who are present to object when this committee member makes the false report.

If Mr. Robinson ever returns, perhaps he will tell us what happens next. What does the chair do, for example? What is the result of the ensuing vote?

But unfortunately the only way to be certain that the bylaws cause the intended results is to be scrupulously careful that they say what they mean, prior to passing them.

I had that thought as well, but the fact that the words were capitalized gave me hope that they were probably defined. If not, that's another bite on the hindquarters waiting to happen.

I think the proper word is will affect the vote. Take your example of a 3-2 vote. Certainly one vote can affect the vote here, but the chair should only vote if doing so will affect it, i.e., if it is a No vote, which would cause the question to fail. If the chair favors the motion, then voting Yes would be pointless, as the question would pass anyway. Similarly, if this question required a 2/3 vote instead of a majority, again a single vote could make a difference, but the chair should not vote unless it would change the outcome, by voting Yes making the vote 4-2. The chair, if opposed to the motion, should simply allow it to fail on a 3-2 vote. But as noted, if this is a situation using small board rules the chair can vote as freely as any member.

I'd like to read the entire article rather than trying to answer based on one paragraph. There is sometimes a distinction between eligibility to be nominated, to be elected, or to hold office, which could change the answer. If it is interpreted to be eligibility to hold that position, then Yes, it could eliminate someone currently serving. Of course it is also possible to write the amendment with a proviso that it would not affect the term of anyone currently serving, if that is what is desired, but that train has apparently sailed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhf1pIl007o [NSFW]

Since this refers to a special meeting, could that vote take place in advance of the date of the meeting, or would it have to be among the first things done at the spatial meeting?

Agreeing with @Josh Martin, the fact that it was unanimous doesn't really belong in the minutes, unless perhaps there's a situation that requires a unanimous vote, which is unusual. Still there's no requirement to include the fact, since it appears to match Mr. Martin's case #1 above. In the case of Unanimous Consent (not the same thing as a unanimous vote, but related), RONR makes clear that it is not necessary that everyone approves, just that nobody objects.

One could indeed. A lot would depend on the exact language of the resolution that imposed this penalty.

To the best of my knowledge, the use of "unanimous" means only that those who voted all agreed. In other words a vote where no dissent was evident. Abstentions, of course, are not votes at all, and are not interpreted as dissent.

I think it is attempting to, but of course may not succeed, in any given instance. It certainly does not attempt to interpret the full meaning and intent of any statute as a whole, but only the part, if any, where the statute specifies that the bylaws may take precedence. I would not be foolish enough to think that anything in RONR could constrain a court hell-bent on deciding otherwise. But I think this particular nit has been well and truly picked, and I agree that we have no substantial disagreement. 🤐

Yes, I have seen that sort of rule as well.

Yes, but again, we are told that the rule in this instance is that the bylaws are permitted to take precedence. The question as I understand it was whether RONR was adopted by a sufficiently unequivocal prescription in the bylaws.

I have seen such rules, which allow a quorum to be assumed, once established, but I believe it is typical that the assumption only lasts as long as it is not questioned by any member. When one member suggests the absence of a quorum, a count is required. I have heard of members suggesting the absence of a quorum as they walked out the door.

I share the mild confusion of my colleagues, above. What I can say for certain is that if you had the right to vote had you not seconded the motion, you retain the right to vote after seconding the motion. And if you would not have had the right to vote had you not seconded the motion, then seconding it would not bestow that right upon you.

Well, I'll go out on a limb and suggest that General Robert may have had a pretty fair idea of what the word order meant, and felt comfortable using it for employees, preferring to use other words such as direct and instruct in other contexts. I'm content to follow his example.

The first problem is that electronic meetings must be authorized in the bylaws to be valid. Once that's settled, the question of whether and how electronic meetings can be made "public" is a different question. I believe there are some types of electronic meetings that may satisfy this requirement, but the exact definition of "public" is something your society will have to determine

If a meeting is considered an activity, which I would think it should be, then are these members not already suspended from attending meetings? Since their improper behavior occurred at meetings, it would seem odd to suspend them from everything else but meetings.

The rule is that all motions made should be recorded, except, normally, any that were withdrawn. All motions would include those defeated, adopted, laid upon the table, postponed, committed, and the like--some of which can still be withdrawn, while others cannot. Defeated motions, since they cannot be withdrawn, would be recorded.

Yes. The point of order itself, the ruling of the chair, the rationale of the chair for that ruling, and the results of an appeal if any.