Gary Novosielski

Fixed that for you.

That's why I gave the rules for both cases.

If four people vote, a majority is 3. Ties are, by definition, less than a majority, and so any motion that results in a tie simply fails, like any other vote that is less than a majority. There's nothing that needs breaking. The only time ties are a problem is in an election, where not electing anyone is not an option, so repeated balloting is required. But the principle is the same--election requires a majority, which means strictly more than half of the votes cast.

No, the second one is still nonsense.

You mean like 2? Or perhaps for spherical 2s in a vacuum. But in real math, if you add 2.999repeating + 2.999repeating, that would equal 6. But those would more properly be called small values of three.

“People think I go out of my way to piss them off. Trust me, it’s not out of my way at all.” —Unknown

At the risk of being charged with pedantry however, I must insist that if any ambiguity does exist, it is not on the question of whether 9 is, in fact, greater that 8⅔. I think it is fair to say that when we are considering such questions, and find ourselves tempted to adopt rounding as part of the process, we are venturing down a dark path to a bad end. This can be summed up in what I shall modestly refer to as Gary's Rule: Comparing: GOOD Rounding: BAD

Well, 2/3 of 13 is not 9. 2+2 is not equal to 6. 3 is not equal to -3. Not even if they think so.

Sure: 31:2(7)

If the bylaws allow it.

Step 2 is incorrect. Two-thirds of 13 is not 9. It is still 8⅔ and always will be; and 9 is still greater than that. Edited to add: And as a reminder to future generations of readers of this thread: The standard in RONR for a two-thirds vote is at least two-thirds, not more than two-thirds. This thread involves an unusual bylaws provision.

You could call the City Clerk. Or if you have access to their bylaws you could look there. In some states it's mandated for municipalities by state law.

Well, because saying that X must be done is not a prohibition of doing Y. Once a meeting exists, whatever business may properly come before it is in order. And since this is not a special (called) meeting, but rather one specified in the bylaws, doing X requires that a meeting context must exist.

Mr. Martin is many things, but an ignorer of musings is not one of them. 😇

Yes, definitely. RONR intentionally makes reopening nominations easy--only a majority vote is needed, while closing nominations requires a two-thirds vote.

I was in the process of drafting a reply similar to this one, using an analogy to special meetings. But on reflection, if this meeting is indeed specified in the bylaws, I don't think it can be considered a special meeting.

"Some members" need math lessons. If more than 2/3 must be present, and if 2/3 of 13 is approximately 8.6667, and if 9 is strictly greater than 8.6667 (which it is), then a quorum is present. Nothing in §44 contradicts this in any way. While in the usual case there can't be fractional voting, there can certainly be fractional results when calculating a threshold for a vote or quorum. With an integral number of members, it will be impossible to hit some of these thresholds exactly, but that does not affect our ability to compare two numbers to see if they are equal and, if not, which is greater.

There comes a point when the word member loses all meaning. Once you arrive at the language, "The parliamentarian shall be a member of the board, but shall have none of the rights of membership, yet has to show up at meetings anyway," it's time to rethink matters.

One person (at most) can make a motion, no matter how many others support it. A motion can be seconded by any member, who may or may not support the proposal, but is presumably in favor of it being discussed. In RONR there is no such thing as being "affiliated" with a motion, and the whole purpose of debate is to change the minds of those who don't agree, so any affiliation with a motion is presumed to be temporary at best.

If the ballot was for an election, the election is incomplete. Conduct a second ballot. Repeat until someone gets a majority. (You may reopen nominations between ballots if that would help.) If the ballot was to decide a motion, the motion fails. In either case, the chair does not get to vote twice.

Nah, that's just crazy talk. 🤪

See RONR (12th ed.) 23:5 for the rule on the timeliness requirement for points of order and 23:6 for exceptions to this rule for continuing breaches. Edited to add: And if you have read @Josh Martin's reply above, you have already seen them. 😏

Presuming the chair is awake throughout this, he or she (etc.) should ensure that debate remains germane to the motion, and suppress any that is not. If the chair is not doing his or her job, then someone should raise a relevant point of order. If debate has become repetitive, and new points are not being made, the chair should ask, "Are you ready for the question?" in an encouraging tone. If people are seeking the floor for a third speech they should not be recognized. If debate therefore fizzles out, the chair should simply put the question.

If the presentation is not in the nature of debate, it does not require suspending any rules, so a majority vote would be sufficient, but if no objection is expected it could be handled by unanimous consent: See

Having not read your bylaws, I would have no way of knowing. RONR does strongly recommend against using any voting method that mixes in-person votes with absentee votes. Hopefully your bylaws don't just say "electronic voting is allowed" because that would raise more questions than it answers. There should be rules that would answer your question in your bylaws or special rules of order. Edited to add: One problem you might have is that once a quorum is lost, you can't make any motion to hold an electronic election, or a half-electronic election, or whatever that would be. And if it has to be unanimous, then why even bother. I suspect that provision is not there for that purpose.