Rob Elsman

This is, indeed, the kind of textualism that I wish to avoid. This kind of textualism holds that the meaning of a text lives inside the text. In my view, reading a text involves communication that necessarily involves both the writer and the reader. The meaning that is conveyed in this kind of communication involves both the writer and the reader--neither one is sufficient by itself. The meaning, if there is any, exists within this interaction between writer and reader. Those who have read me on this forum over the years know that I have long applied what I have called the average reader test. I have held that it is not sufficient for the authors to intend to mean something when they write RONR; and, unless the average reader is able to reach the meaning with a good faith reading of the text, the writing does not mean what the authors intended. So, when it is said that what I, a reader, believe is immaterial, I am concerned. It is not sufficient that words are on my page, however much they are "still there". The words do not have some kind of little beads of existential meaning encapsulated in them. What I and other readers believe is of upmost importance, because, without me and all the other readers of the book, the words of the book do not have any meaning at all.

From my perspective, the requirement that all business to be transacted at a special meeting be included in the call of the meeting is solely intended to inform the members in advance in order that they might determine whether to make the necessary adjustments to their schedules and make arrangements to travel and lodge in order to attend the meeting. It would not be fair to members to have them make these decisions without a complete understanding of what business would be transacted. All this falls to the wayside if all the members actually attend the meeting. If all the members are present, no member can claim to have been absent on the basis of having been misled about what business would be transacted. It is in this sense that I say that the rule at 9:15 is moot when all members are actually present. Disagreeing with Mr. Gerber, I do not see any other purposes for the rule at 9:15. I have to wonder if Mr. Gerber has confused the requirement at 9:15 with the requirement for previous notice of a motion. Now, if the rule at 9:15 is not in operation (because all the members are actually present), it does not interfere with the transaction of business. It is for that reason that I claim that it is not necessary--in fact, it is absurd--to suspend the rule to allow the transaction of business not mentioned in the call of the meeting.

Okay. I will stand by my previous answer as a matter of the common parliamentary law. If the California Brown Act is controlling, however, you will need to get some legal help.

Yes, Mr. Honemann, that is my opinion. I do not agree that 9:15 operates for other purposes than protecting the rights of absentees, as seems to be the position taken by Mr. Gerber. New business is introduced in regular meetings without the preparation Mr. Gerber speaks of; I do not see why 9:15 would be necessary for such preparation for special meetings. I think this is a red herring.

If you are asking a question about statutory law, you will need to seek legal counsel. As we are fond of saying, we don't do legal here.

Perhaps we could get by with saying 9:15 need not be strictly enforced when there are no absentees to protect. 😁

I beg your pardon. I did make that assumption.

When there are no absentees, a vote of the majority of the entire membership equals a majority vote; so, in effect, an ordinary motion to Rescind can be adopted by majority vote without previous notice in this very particular case.

What an anticipated can of worms Mr. Kapur opens. Mr. Gerber already finds other purposes for the rule at 9:15 than I do. So, here we go. Where does this all end?

I think this rule is moot if all the members of the assembly are actually present, as I have said above.

I am of two minds, but I think I'm inclined to believe that no suspension of the rules is necessary as long as all the members are actually present. RONR (12th ed.) 25:10 is solely intended to protect the rights of absentees, but in the case where there are no absentees to protect, what is said there is moot. Thus, any business that is otherwise able to come before the assembly under the rules can be transacted without suspending the rules, since there is no interfering rule in operation.

Why doesn't the original poster answer her own question?

In ordinary societies, the right of a member of an assembly to vote can only be suspended by the operation of a bylaw or by the infliction of a punishment upon conviction in a disciplinary procedure.

"removal from office" is the phrase regularly used in RONR (12th ed., hardcover), Index, p. 701 et al.

With respect to the original poster's question, the general answer is given in RONR Official Interpretation 2006-12.

Yes, the presiding officer should cast his vote right along with other voters. Of course, he will not vote a second time when doing so would affect the result.

The use of electronic gadgets in a meeting hall or room is subject to any standing rules the assembly may have adopted. If this board is concerned about the leakage of sensitive information to unauthorized persons, it may adopt such a standing rule prohibiting the use of electronic communication devices during a meeting or any specified portion thereof. Such a standing rule can be suspended by majority vote if it becomes advantageous, on a particular occasion, for a member to make a phone call or send a text message.

What Mr. Katz is referring to as a "topic", RONR (12th ed.) refers to as an "item of business". The ordinary way for new business to be introduced is for a member of the assembly to make a main motion during the New Business section of the session's established order of business.

RONR (12th ed.) does not say a meeting can be ratified. I cannot figure out where that is coming from; the text does not suggest it. Again, I would ask what "action" was taken that needs to be ratified.

So far, I do not understand exactly what requires ratifying.

What action was taken on the basis of the electronic proceedings?

In a very technical sense, Mr. Honemann, I agree with you; however, experience on this forum shows that the fundamental step of stating the question is very often omitted by inexperienced, untrained, or careless presiding officers. I cannot tell from the facts given whether this proposal was, in fact, a recommendation of a committee, a too informal motion in a small board, or what else. However, I do not think we should minimize the fact that, as the poster says, "[a] proposal was made for funding". The proposal is before the assembly, one way or another, rightly or wrongly. Notwithstanding the too loosey-goosey handling of the proposal, I still do not believe that a second main motion is in order, as I have said.

Since a proposal has already been made for funding, the relevant main motion has, in effect, already been made in the affirmative to adopt the proposal to fund. It sounds to me like the chair has failed to state the question, as such. At any rate, a second main motion to reject the proposal violates the fundamental principle of parliamentary law that only one main motion can be pending at a time, RONR (12th ed.) 5:4. The rejection of the pending main motion to fund means that the assembly has expressly decided not to fund, RONR (12th ed.) 4:3; thus, the opponent of the proposal might want to speak in debate in opposition to the adoption of the pending main motion, giving enlightening and persuasive reasons why it is not advisable for the assembly to adopt the pending main motion to fund.

I would invite the poster to restate his question using full sentences with enough background for respondents to accurately answer the question being asked. Please, help us to help you.

An abstention means that the member did not vote at all. If the abstention is known, it is ignored.