J. J.

Yes. Anyone can suggest any choice. The Nominating Committee is not obliged to listen, under RONR. The directors, individually or collectively, can certainly ask. The Nominating Committee, or its members individually can decline to answer.

RONR does not deal with budgets specifically. Budgets, when adopted, would be a main motion. As an adopted main motion, any changes to a budget would be treated as the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted. That generally requires a majority vote with previous notice, a 2/3 vote, or a vote of a majority of the entire membership. There is no rule in RONR requiring your group to have a budget; your rules may.

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.