Gary Novosielski

Oh, I think it is such a rule. But I substantially agree that it is not a rule in RONR.

Abstentions should not be called for, nor counted (unless necessary to establish a quorum on a roll-call). Abstaining from voting is, by definition, not a vote--neither Yes, nor No, and should not be counted as either one. A person who remains silent after a call for "any Abstentions?" has abstained just as surely as someone who stands and shouts "I abstain!". Therefor it is bad practice to ask for abstentions, and on counted votes it is improper for the minutes to include a count of abstentions.

It would not be dilatory to vote against the motion to Suspend the Rules, and yet support the underlying motion. Members may simply wish to hear debate on the issue before voting.

If the president appoints members to a committee but does not explicitly name anyone as the chair, then the first person named is presumed to be the chair.

Thanks for the expanded view. I guess this strikes me as one of those rules that is intended to solve a problem that doesn't exist to any significant extent. If a member really did insist on creating such a controversy, is it likely that a majority, knowing that the member was not present, would agree? And would it take more time to simply vote down the spurious correction, than to raise a point of order regarding the validity of the motion, researching actual attendance records, possibly handling an appeal, and such? I can't remember a time when I've actually seen this come up in real life, which is all to the good. 🙂

It's not exactly the same, since "never" is a point in time, presumably in the infinite future, whereas "zero" is an integer value, Beyond that, even if they were exactly the same, I guess I fail to appreciate the harm done, or perceived to have been done, by the repetition. I'm sure there are many examples in many threads of answers that are virtual duplicates that have gone unreprimanded. I will admit that, on occasion, I post an answer before having read all the way to the bottom of a thread, but I don't think that was true of this instance. Even so, I think the damage is minimal.

If the rules in RONR apply, voting is limited to persons physically present. But whether they do apply or not is a more complex question, which depends upon your bylaws, special rules of order, and potentially any standing rules for your convention.

So you don't think that Mr. Brown really does disagree, in part, with Mr. Martin?

Yes. The limit is zero.

I think it's fair to say that it was always the case that members who were not present could participate in correction/approval of minutes. I don't know when the idea got started that they could not, but I agree it's a common misconception. The classic example of why it should be allowed is if a member notes that, although he was absent, the minutes say he made a motion, he should certainly be allowed to offer a correction to fix that error. But there is no need to search for reasons like that. The rule is simply that members have all the rights of members.

No, that's still shy of the truth. The members that already have the most votes are elected if and only if they received votes on more than half of the ballots cast. A vote of less than a majority never elects, if the rules in RONR apply. Any candidates that are elected on the first ballot are dropped from the second (and possibly subsequent) ballots.

IANAL, but there must be some legal standard for determining where a person with several houses is considered to be a resident. For example, where is their driver's license issued? Where do they file taxes? It's not really a parliamentary question, but I agree the language quoted does not imply anything like full-time residency.

Ah, interesting.

As did I, but I don't think it matters much as long as it can be determined which side prevailed. If it's a straight percentage of the votes, it should add up to 100%, but they might take care not to allow a close vote to round to 50-50 unless it is an actual tie. That would be a desirable feature, if they're not going to show you the actual vote count.

FYI: Here's a tip on searching with the Kindle app. With respect to the Kindle version, I was surprised to find that if you want to search for a particular paragraph, such as 41:9, and you enter that in the search field, it will say 0 matches found. But if instead of 41:9 you enter 41: 9, with a space after the colon, it will locate all the appropriate matches. This applies even when the paragraph number is more than one digit, such as 41: 10 . It's a strange glitch, but this workaround may come in handy. BTW, I'm using the Windows version of Kindle. Not sure how this behaves on other platforms.

Yes, but it depends how the percentage is calculated. These numbers add up to only 99%. Presumably the other 1% did not vote. But in RONR, abstentions are not counted at all, so the percentages cannot be relied on. If you got a vote of 20% in favor and 19% against, that would still pass, since more than fifty percent of those voting approved of the motion.

I don't see where in the quoted language it authorizes electronic meetings via Zoom. I see where it allows electronic notice, but not electronic meetings. Did I just miss it?

FYI: Here's a tip on searching with the Kindle app. With respect to the Kindle version, I was surprised to find that if you want to search for a particular paragraph, such as 41:9, and you enter that in the search field, it will say 0 matches found. But if instead of 41:9 you enter 41: 9, with a space after the colon, it will locate all the appropriate matches. This applies even when the paragraph number is more than one digit, such as 41: 10 . It's a strange glitch, but this workaround may come in handy. BTW, I'm using the Windows version of Kindle. Not sure how this behaves on other platforms.

My assertion was limited to the fact that it exists.

There's also a Kindle edition.

If you are operating under small board rules, the chair can make motions. I assume that's what you meant by "ask"--to move that the item be added. Or just move to accept the resignation under New Business.

A qualification for office in the bylaws cannot be suspended (unless there is a provision in the bylaws for its suspension), not even by a unanimous vote. The bylaws would have to be properly amended to change this provision. And with voting requirements in general, "almost" is not good enough.

You are not free to define what "in attendance" means since this is already defined in RONR, which also prohibits electronic meetings unless already permitted in your bylaws.

If it is a meeting of the general membership, then the board is not in session and cannot pass any resolutions, nor would they have any weight if passed. But the assembly is free to set a time for an adjourned meeting, and to adjourn to that time.

No rule in RONR prohibits it, but if members are concerned about this apparent conflict of interest, they may wish to vote for somebody else.