Gary Novosielski

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.

Based on your bylaws, removal requires only a majority of those (board) members present and voting. Once removed, the VP, if one exists, automatically becomes president, unless there is specific language in your bylaws regarding vacancies in the presidency in particular.

In this instance they may not need to. If the annual meeting date is determined in the bylaws, then it does not need to be called. People can simply show up. The President has no authority to cancel the annual meeting, unless some strange provision in the bylaws grants that authority. There is no need to cancel any meeting simply because the President does not plan on attending. The Vice President, if any would preside in that case, but if for some reason the VP is unable or unwilling, the meeting is still held, and at the start of the meeting, the Secretary (or basically anyone) can call the meeting to order and preside over the election of a President-pro-tempore to preside of the remainder of the meeting.

Well, it doesn't say that, and since it was a paraphrase, it could well be that the misunderstanding took place on its way to this forum.

Well, if the adopted amendment were such that it caused the mover no longer to agree with the motion (to an extent that would justify requesting leave to withdraw) then why not? I agree with Dan that the correct interpretation of the rule as currently written is that this is not permitted, but I have not seen a persuasive argument on why the rule is beneficial and should be protected. Was it common practice at some point for people to make a motion disingenuously, and then argue against it? In other words, what was broken that this rule fixes?

Yes it is. But a Point of Order might have been a better choice than merely voting No on the motion. If a member believes that a motion is not in order because it violates the bylaws, a Point of Order raises the underlying question and addresses it directly, and it also gets the ruling and possible appeal into the minutes, without requiring the permission of the assembly.

If it's an elected office, that's the Honorable Dog Catcher.

The chair is incorrect. First, why does New Business not appear on the agenda? Is the agenda adopted by the assembly at the start of the meeting, or is it just plopped down by the chair, and that's it? If the latter, it is not binding at all. If the former, anyone can move to add New Business to the agenda. But even if there is no heading for New Business, it is not correct that this prevents people from making new motions. When all the business on the agenda is disposed of, and before adjournment, a member may obtain the floor and make a motion as if under New Business.

...deleted...

If you're planning to make the results of the votes public, why are you taking the votes in executive session?

No. No amount of wrongdoing can turn it into rightdoing. Permitting electronic meetings will require a bylaws amendment (and presumably some rules of order to allow for the non-standard nature of those meetings. But since the meetings were not properly called, the business transacted at them is not subject to ratification. If actions were taken as a result of those meetings, the actions can be ratified, presuming these are actions that the assembly could have authorized in advance.

Or maybe 501(c)3?

Making a motion does not affect your right to vote on it any way you want, or not vote on it if you don't.

Absolutely not.