J. J.

As indicated by others, this would be a majority vote, but to be illustrative, this would be: A majority vote, 7 is more than half of 8. (This is also present and voting.) A 2/3 vote, 7 is equal to or more than 2/3 of 8. Not a majority of those present, as 7 is not more than half of 18. Not 2/3 of those present, as 7 is not equal to or more than 2/3 of 18.

Sometimes the minutes will be released in the future or be subject to discovery in a lawsuit. It might be done for those purposes.

If the past practice, a custom, violates no adopted written rule it is still in effect. It may be changed by a majority vote. In some cases, most of which are not applicable using RONR, I would permit a point of order "that ____ is no longer this society's custom," to be raised when the custom involves something that is pending. However the chair rules on the point of order, it would be subject to appeal.

As far as I can tell, it would be synonymous, in this case.

The only problem that I could see, and it could be a very serious problem, is if the first ballot does not result in an election. These absentee ballots could not be used in a second round of voting; it would be necessary to send in absentee ballots specifically for the second round (and any subsequent rounds) of voting. Because a 2/3 vote is required to elect, it is very likely that there will be multiple rounds of voting.

It is fairly easy to calculate "a simple majority of those present." It is not, "a majority of those present," nor is it "a majority of the most members that attended the meeting at some point," nor is it "a majority of those present at the start of the meeting." If there was question of no quorum at any point in the meeting, the chair counts the number of people present at that point and any number that is above half of that constitutes a quorum. Using only whole numbers, if there are 4-5 members present, the quorum is 3, if 3-2 members are present, the quorum is 2. Finally, again in whole numbers, if 1 one member is present the quorum is 1, as more than half of one, in whole numbers, is one. While not artfully put, the effective quorum is one. In other words, the minimum number of people needed to conduct business is effectively one. If that is desired, the bylaw could state, "One member shall constitute a quorum." While somewhat unusual, any assembly can chose to permit a single member to conduct business, at a properly called meeting; in some cases, it might be advantageous. An assembly can appoint a committee of one, which will have a quorum of one.

This is almost the reversal of a merger. One organization effectively "gives birth" to a new group.

Okay, yes, go to Dr. Stackpoll's article.

A single member holding two offices is not "co" situation. A "co" situation is when a single position is held by two people. This is a situation of one person holding 2 positions, which is permissible, unless your bylaws say otherwise.

As soon as a date was attached to "Lay on the Table" it should have been treated as a motion to Postpone. The error could have been corrected only when it occurred at the December meeting.

I agree, if that is the case.

If I read that correctly they want to lower the quorum from 2/3 to a majority.

I thought you meant that the current number of members was 12. With 21 members, the quorum is 14. It could be and whole number between 13 and 11, inclusive. In terms of proportion, it would be anything greater than 1/2 (3/6) and less than 2/3 (4/6).

Seven would be the only whole number that would be within scope.

With the consent of the assembly, any nonmember may speak.

I agree, but I was showing difficulty in preventing it.

Usually the answer is yes. Except in some cases where a rule would be constructed to prevent its suspension, at worst, the rules could be suspended to permit this. The rules could be suspended to permit me to make a motion or recommendation.

The "voting body" is the board; unless there is some other rule, they would not be released.

1. Yes, but those minutes, unless released, are only opened to members board. 2. No.

I do not agree with the bolded part. The rule being suspended is not, "a rule requiring a majority vote for adoption." The rule that is being suspended this situation is: "a rule requiring a majority vote taken by ballot for adoption." At the time the chair makes his announcement, it is the above rule. The circumstances have added another function to that rule. I do not believe, at that point, the ballot requirement can be separated from the rule requiring a majority vote. I can at least one other example were, because of a change in circumstances, something that would normally be void is is fine; it is not specific to this situation. "However, this seems to be based upon an assumption that every time the chair announces the result of a ballot vote there is an assumed request for unanimous consent to the suspension of any rule which may have been violated." No, but believe that this virtually happened. As to the "in general," I cannot find anything in text that would lead me to believe that this is the exception to that rule.

I would not see why. This not appear to be a rule in the nature of rule of order, as it could not be adopted as a rule of order. In earlier editions, it very clearly was a rule in the nature of rule of order, because it was specifically stated that a special rule could permit it. All that said, the position was listed as "chairman," which doesn't tell us if this is an officer position or not.

Elections take effect immediately, unless your bylaws say otherwise, and if the person being elected does not object, or has given previously to being elected (p. 444, ll. 16-20). If the member is not present and did not consent to being elected, then it would be effective when he's notified of the election, unless he immediately declined. Basically, if the person has consented to being elected, and unless the bylaws say otherwise, he takes office when elected. I have no idea what your bylaws say or if the people consented.

Adding to that, you would find the requirements for previous notice in both your own rules and in RONR.

This is perhaps where I have a problem. I feel if a rule can be suspended, the breach of that cannot be a breach of a continuing nature. Likewise, if cannot be suspended, its violation creates a continuing breach. That is certainly implicit in RONR, as the section that breaches of a continuing refers to the section on rules that cannot be suspended. It has also been that the authorship team, collectively, have stated, saying, in regard to the 10th edition: "Answering that question [of what constitutes a continuing breach] did not require writing on a clean slate, since in the existing work there was already considerable similarity between specific rules listed as providing exceptions to the timeliness requirement and those described as rules that cannot be suspended. Indeed, there is considerable force to the argument that, in general, those rules of such importance that they cannot be suspended are also those whose violation is so consequential that they should be subject to even an untimely point of order.” (“Significant Changes in RONR, Part II,” National Parliamentarian, 2st Quarter, 2001) I see no changes between the 10th and 11th editions on this point. You can also ask if that relationship between a breach and a suspension is an accurate reporting of the nebulous general parliamentary law. I think it is.

To me, the result seems to be identical. I would have the same problem if, after the fact, the assembly adopted a rule "suspend the rules and permit a plurality to elect," unless the vote was by ballot. I'm very trouble about looking at the reasons for why we think a breach of a continuing nature happened. The first case is deliberate act; the second is presumably by accident. That should not make a difference. Continuing breaches are many times accidental in nature. Many times they are deliberate. We are presuming that the election case is accidental, but the unanimous vote might have been taken by voice, without realizing that it would force some members to presumably reveal their ballot vote.