Gary Novosielski

The term preferential vote member is nowhere in RONR. What do your bylaws say about such a member?

In most cases it is not in order to question previous rulings of the chair, except at the time they occur by using a Point of Order, or the motion to Appeal From the Decision of the Chair. The only exception is when a ruling creates a continuing breach of the rules. See: RONR (12th ed.) 23:5-6. In my view, a more appropriate course of action is to start raising timely points of order and appeals immediately when appropriate. Analyzing past decisions may provide evidence for disciplining the chair, but will do little or nothing to correct things that have already been done, and were never objected to at the time. Indeed, the chair may, in his own defense, cite the fact that his decisions were never successfully appealed when ruled upon, and should not be second-guessed at this late date (or equivalent words).

IF the rules in RONR apply, a board has no power to amend the bylaws in the first place.

No. RONR pays careful attention to the rights of voters, who are explicitly permitted to vote for any eligible person for office. It does not outline any right to hold office or run for office, or anything else that could be considered a "right" of a candidate, apart from holding an office if duly elected to it.

I'd agree if the term "rounding" had been referred to, but just naming the next integer in sequence would be 13. It appears that the drafters had been looking for a pretentious way to specify what can be simply referred to as a majority.

A "majority vote" without further qualification means a majority of those present and voting, so you can't say for sure what a majority would mean without knowing if anyone abstained. If all seven vote, a majority would be four. If only two vote, a majority would be two. If it's a majority of the members, for example in calculating a quorum, it means a majority of members, not of empty chairs.

The secretary is correct. RONR explicitly states that a current member may participate fully in the approval process of minutes for a meeting at which he was not present, or not even a member. However nobody should be voting on approval of minutes (except perhaps voting on a particular correction). The only way to object to the contents of the draft minutes is to offer a correction. And even that is not a guarantee that the correction will be agreed to.

There is nothing to round, at 3, so the next higher whole number is 4, the same as adding one. The next higher whole number after 12 is 13.

According to the rules for mathematical precedence, division is done before addition. The voting members 6, divided by two is 3, and the next higher whole number is 4. This is identical to a requirement of a majority of the members, which is the default rule in RONR. So the language in the bylaws is redundant and pointless. Unfortunately, bylaws authors often appear to love redundant and pointless language beyond all comprehension. Good luck.

Sadly, yes.

There is no such rule in RONR. If people cannot hear each other during a meeting, a Point of Order might be more appropriate.

Remember that some motions must be divided upon the demand of a single member. See: RONR (12th ed.) 27:10

If the quorum is not a fixed number, but depends on a certain fraction of the members of the board, such as a majority (which appears to be what you're assuming), then the quorum is now three. Empty chairs are not members of the board.

RONR does not permit this type of voting unless it's allowed in your bylaws. In which case it is still not a question about RONR.

You ignored the phrase that I have bolded in the quote above. Any changes made in the bylaws that would affect trustees would presumably affect all trustees, not just the one guy on the committee. Therefore his interests are in common to other members. If he felt uncomfortable voting on such questions, he can't be forced to vote, but he has no reason to feel uncomfortable, and certainly cannot be, prevented from voting

It is not proper to raise a point of order on the response to a parliamentary inquiry, since it is an expression of the chair's opinion, and as such can't breach any rule, and cannot be "sustained".

I don't know what that means. As I read it, it might mean that a majority of the voting membership must participate in the vote, or it might mean that a majority of the voting membership must vote Aye. To me, it appears ambiguous. Since the vote apparently did not even achieve a majority, the 2/3 threshold is moot.

No, the inquiry would not be considered debate or other business. The appeal could still be made. In fact the inquiry might be whether an appeal would be proper at this point, for which the answer would properly be Yes, but even if the chair answered No, that would not stop a member from actually raising the Appeal, since answering an inquiry is not the same as making an actual ruling.

And the principles of interpretation hold that the specific outweighs the general. So when the general rule is that a member should vote on all matters on which he has an opinion, but the specific rule is that he should not vote in cases of special interest, then the latter should apply.

Yes, it is correct that the rules allowing debate and amendment are suspendible. In the case proposed by the OP, it appears that debate is to be allowed but it is desired to suppress amendments. The motion could be of the form: "I move to suspend the rules and consider without possibility of amendment, the following: That the clubhouse be painted purple." If the requisite 2/3 vote is not achieved, the motion may still be considered by moving it normally, but amendments would then be allowed. If it is desired to allow neither debate nor amendment, the motion is: "to suspend the rules and pass the following motion: …". A vote is taken immediately, and again a 2/3 approval is required.

I have to assume that "chair makes a decision" means that the chair ruled on an issue in a particular way. In your example, the parliamentary inquiry is superfluous. Parliamentary inquiries are hypothetical questions and are not subject to points of order, so the point of order was not proper. However, it is proper to Appeal From the Decision of the Chair immediately after that ruling is announced, presuming it is seconded as needed.

The debate is not about whether the member in this instance has the right to vote. That is an absolute right. But I am not the first to note that having the right to do something does not make it the right thing to do. And in this case, RONR states quite clearly that, notwithstanding having the right to vote, there are times when one simply should not vote. RONR merely points out that members have the right to do things they should not do, i.e., to do wrong. So without weighing in on the specifics of this case, which I think are a matter for interpretation, I will say that it is reasonable to be annoyed with a person who urges a member to do wrong.

Once placed before the assembly, the assembly has the right (among other things) to amend the motion before voting on it. If the assembly does not have the actual power to carry out such an action as suggested in the proposal, but is only acting in an advisory capacity to someone else, then the motion can be of the form: "It is the sense of the <body> that <action> should be done," and vote yes or no on that. But even then there is no prohibition against changing the wording of the motion. Since this is only advice (in the nature of a committee recommendation) it makes little difference what the motion actually says, as long as the "decision maker" can figure out the sense of the body.

I don't think it would or should matter. But obviously there's no support for that view in RONR because RONR has no similar three-reading rule.

Excellent.