Gary Novosielski

With 54 votes cast, if the motion barely passes with 41 votes, there will have been 13 negative votes. And with 13 negative votes there must be at least 39 affirmative votes. But unless we reduce the vote count to 52 by subtracting two abstentions, there still must, in practice be 41 Yes votes. A defection of one vote would give us a 40-14 vote, and 3 × 14 would require 42 votes. @Atul Kapur is correct. This is an extension of the quick test that a 2/3 vote requires the affirmative to be at least twice the negative. For a 3/4 vote, the affirmative must be thrice the negative. In general, for any required fraction n/(n+1), i.e., 4/5, 5/6, 6/7, the affirmative must be n times that of the negative.

Certainly, but that's because in order to reach 54 votes cast, the number of No votes will have necessarily increased to 13. With 13 No votes, a vote of 3 ×13 = 39 votes could adopt the motion, so you could afford two more abstentions, bringing the total voters to 52. But if those two do not abstain, they will have to be Yes votes, making 41.

Presuming you have accurately quoted the bylaws, a vacancy is not a member. A member is a living breathing person. A vacancy is an office that has no member in it. So without seeing the actual language in the bylaws, I would guess that the quorum is two-thirds of the nine current members, i.e., six.

Electronic voting of any kind is not permitted unless provided for in your bylaws. If the rules in RONR apply, whenever a quorum is not present, regular business may not be conducted. The only motions that are in order are those listed in RONR (12th ed.) 40:7 ff. 40:7 Even in the absence of a quorum, the assembly may fix the time to which to adjourn (22), adjourn (21), recess (20), or take measures to obtain a quorum. Subsidiary and incidental motions, questions of privilege, motions to Raise a Question of Privilege or Call for the Orders of the Day, and other motions may also be considered if they are related to these motions or to the conduct of the meeting while it remains without a quorum.

This jumped out at me, too. The parliamentarian is not saying that members should not be allowed to abstain. He is merely saying that abstentions should not be called for or counted since anyone who does not vote Yes or No has abstained. And their number doesn't matter.

This appears to be an unqualified three-fourths (75%) vote, which means three-fourths of those present and voting. The number present does not matter as long as a quorum is present, and the number of abstentions does not matter since they are by definition not votes. The voters, be they Yes or No, are all that matter. So as long as the number of Yes votes is at least three times the number of No votes, the three-fourths threshold is achieved. Since there were 8 No votes, it would take 3 × 8 = 24 Yes votes to adopt the motion. With 46 Yes votes, that's not even close. You had 46 votes out of 54 voters, which is more than 85% approval. But since the chair declared it to have failed, and no timely point of order was raised, it failed. You can move it again at a future meeting.

It depends. In an organization governed purely by RONR, with meetings as frequent as quarterly, an agenda is not necessary or even proper. If used, an agenda is only a draft agenda until adopted at the start of the meeting by a majority vote. While being considered, it may be amended, yes. Even after adopting, it can be amended by a two-thirds vote. But if your bylaws say, for example, something like: "An agenda shall be used for all regular meetings, which shall be prepared in advance by the president," then no. This is the case for some public bodies such as school boards in some locations.

N/A

You don't seem to be the same person as Guest Dave, or Guest Follow.., so I'm not sure what the big picture is here, but... Please clarify whether item 2 was approved but not properly recorded in the minutes, or whether it was actually omitted from approval, but the minutes correctly reflect that error. I'm closer to guessing that it is the latter. If that's right, you need not do anything except make the motion again as if it had never been made. There is no higher threshold required, with or without prior notice. There is no such motion as Amend Something Never Adopted because there is nothing to amend.

Obviously you can, since she did. Declining a nomination has no actual effect, except to warn people who may be considering voting for you that if elected you may well decline the office. It doesn't trigger any rules that disqualify you or anything like that. There are still the common problems of the bylaws not authorizing absentee voting, or such, but that's another issue.

I agree that It would be awkward to restrict debate to the sole issue of whether the motion should be recommended to the general assembly without going into the merits of the motion itself. I think the statement from the committee chair would be fine during debate, if a bit directive in tone, but combined with other evidence it suggests a committee chair who is high on his own supply, as the kids say.

No, that's just the loophole that after any unanimous consent request, if there is objection, the chair states the question. There's nothing there that is unique to a request to withdraw. A request is an incidental motion which requires a second if made on behalf of oneself. The fact that it was made or assumed by the chair as a unanimous consent request is what removes the need for a second. Perhaps the chair is presumed to be the second. A better rule, in my view, is stated in 33:22, which says: Generally, such matters are settled by unanimous consent or informally, but if there is an objection, a motion can be made to grant the request. I think that should be the general rule for all unanimous consent requests, which closes the "no second needed" loophole.

Sorry, but both 33:2(4) and 33:15 say exactly the opposite.

Since there's no requirement in your bylaws that the president must be a member, just go ahead and install the heck out of everyone in December. She can join in January, or in June, for that matter. But be careful. If she is presiding while not a member, she can't do any of the things that only a member can do, like vote, even to "break a tie" (which is not actually a thing). In RONR you will run across many things that a chair can do in a variety of situations that contain the phrase "the chair, if a member, can" do this or that.

I think you have that backward, or the not-hole has struck again.

Or by majority vote if there is objection.

So the Chair of the Bylaws committee is now the chairman of the board, putting the question on his own recommendation? This must be one wicked set of bylaws. And do we even know for certain that the Bylaws committee reports to the board? It sounds like the board reports to the bylaws chair.

Of course not. In the first place, in my view, a bylaws committee should be reporting to the membership, not to the board, but you may have different provisions in your bylaws. And even if the committee does report to the board, and even if the board approves the recommendations, and even if the recommendations claim that no discussion will be permitted, that's bogus. The membership is free to discuss and amend the bylaws--to any extent, if this is a complete revision; and to the extent allowed by the scope of the previous notice, if not. And neither the membership nor the board is obliged to follow the edicts of the chair of the bylaws committee. The membership may issue instructions to the board, but not the other way around.

Yes, I had considered that, and it sounds a lot like that to me as well. But think it depends on the structural parliamentary situation at the time. If the guest, for whatever reason, is heard from at a time before that question--or any question--is before the assembly, it is technically not a speech in debate. So the question is does this rule apply based on the timing when the guest is heard, or on the content of the speech, or rather the predicted content of the speech, since the chair does not know for certain what the guest will say, and so cannot know for certain the vote required to grant permission.

Yes, a non-member may be permitted to speak other than in debate, by majority vote.

Almost certainly not. When they call for "discussion" they usually mean debate, in which only members can participate. There will often be periods for "public comment" or "hearing of the public" but that's virtually always a separate event, which usually precedes debate.

Well, can guests make motions according to your rules?

Quite so; thanks. The bylaws and RONR are among those other sources that must be carefully examined. If the bylaws contain no authorization for special assessments, then the motion is not in order in the first place, unless it is itself in the nature of a bylaws amendment to authorize it.

If the resignation was not formally accepted, the president would have the right to withdraw the resignation and there would be no replacement election at all. Once accepted, however, the resignation is final and can no longer be withdrawn. But even then, the ex-president would have the right to seek reëlection. Although he might have trouble getting people to vote for him. These are not matters of opinion on which the membership might vote. They are questions of fact. The resignation was either accepted or it was not. And if it was, it is likely that having once met the qualifications to be present those requirements have not changed. So I don't see where the members had any business holding a vote on either question. Even if the vote was unanimous, they have no right to abridge the fundamental rights of any member except through a proper disciplinary action with full due process. If they don't want him reëlected, fine--don't vote for him. But they can't deny other people's rights to vote for him if they so choose.