J. J.

A quorum is the numbers of members at the meeting needed to conduct business, not the number of votes cast. Warm bodies, not pieces of mail. You would be free to redefine that in your bylaws.

Agreeing, I will note that if the question is put first, members in attendance vote, and then the ballots are mailed out to the members that did not vote, it is possible to mix the ballots. It is necessary to keep an accurate record of who voted at the meeting, and, generally, that there be a second meeting to formally declare the result (and hear any challenges). It also takes authorization in the bylaws to do this, properly.

I am assuming you are speaking of disciplinary action? Generally, in the absence of a bylaw provision, the assembly will both charge and try the individual. See Chapter XX.

I think you are asking a legal question, as phrased.

Yes, and that is why I would not claim that there is a "basic right" to make motions or debate. A member has a right to make motions in the manner that the other members, collectively, have a right to make motions. Those rights, in general, may be curtailed, but they not be curtailed individually for just one member. For example, if the Previous Question is adopted in regard to the main motion, the individual member does not retain a right to move an amendment on that motion. The members, collectively, do not retain that right, at that time. You said initially, " P. 264 says that debate, except as limited by the appropriate subsidiary (or corresponding incidental main) motions, is a basic right of an individual member." No, it says, in effect, that the rules cannot be suspended to prevent one member from exercising the rights that the other members may exercise in the circumstance.1 There is, of course, the exceptions for disciplinary action and for some action of the bylaws. Even talking about introducing business, when no motion is pending, a member may not be able make a motion in the circumstance. A member does not a "basic right" to introduce new business while the assembly is between hearing reports of committees. If you say that members have a "basic right" to make motions, you are saying a member can make a motion in any circumstance (though not intending to say that, perhaps). 1And yes, if there is a circumstance where a member was deprived of the rights other members have, in the same circumstance, and with those exceptions, a breach of a continuing nature would be created.

A point of order could, if this was a breach of a continuing nature. I will say, yes, provided the recount/recapitulation is done timely, as per pp. 418-19. .

If it was "a basic right of an individual member" it could not be curtailed. You have the same rights as everyone else to make a motion, but you do not have the right to make a motion whenever you want. Those "same rights" could not be suspended just in regard to you.

Or, there could be remedies for different breaches? First, the assembly could suspend the rule that the 2/3 vote was needed, provided that it didn't involve another p. 251 violation. Announcing that the voice vote was "64 yes and 33 no votes" and that the motion was adopted would not create a continuing breach. Likewise if the vote was stated as "33 yes and 64 no" and that the motion was adopted, this would not create a continuing breach, either. Today, and I can still be persuaded, I will say that if a vote can be counted, it can be recounted or at least recapitulated. In either of the cases, whether or not the chair stated it as a 2/3 vote, the vote can be recounted by the assembly and the announcement can be corrected. I base this on p. 446, ll. 4-7. If the assembly feels that it can rely on the accuracy of the count and the announcement, as recorded in the minutes or written on a scrap of paper, it may correct the announcement. In a set of given circumstances, Society A may feel that it is fine to rely on whatever information exists, and recount the vote and change the determination. In the same circumstances, Society B may decide that the information is not sufficient to change the determination.

Making a motion is not the basic right of an individual member. There are many examples of when a member cannot make the motion would like to make. The right to make make motions, in general, may be suspended, as indicated. A member, not under disciplinary action, or due to some action of the bylaws, may not, however, be singled out and forbidden to make motions that other members may make. If you had a "basic right" as an individual member to make a motion, you could move to adopt a main motion while another motion is pending. If I had a "basic right" as an individual member to make a motion, I could move to amend a main motion after the Previous Question was adopted in regard to that main motion. If we are members, we could have a general right to make motions, that were otherwise in order. That right is a general right, which may be curtailed, collectively, by the assembly.

I think we could possibly agree that, provided the assembly had the authority to create the committee, the chair could not disband it, without that authority being granted to him in the bylaws.

However, making a motion is not a "basic right of an individual member." It would be permissible to, prior to a main motion's introductions, suspend the rules and prohibit amendments to the main motion; it would take a 2/3 vote. Gen Robert used something as a similar example in his book Parliamentary Practice. In regard to debate, a motion "that Member Jones not be permitted speak in debate on this question," would be generally be a violation of the "basic right of an individual member," except in cases where it was a penalty for an infraction of the rules (Chapter XX stuff). With that exception, depriving a member of the right to enter into debate in such a manner would create a breach of a continuing nature. The point of order can only be raised during the continuance of the breach (p. 251. Continuing breaches are not necessarily eternal breaches. When does this end, or "heal," of its own accord? When there can be no more debate. In other words, until debate has ended on this question, which could be a few hours away, there would a continuing breach. When debate ends of this question, it is too late to raise a point of order, because the breach "healed" of its own accord. I would note that if the member moving the question would, when initially recognized, move the Previous Question, and that motion was adopted, debate would be cut off, prohibiting Jones, or anyone else from speaking or making motions (p. 251, ll.3-7).

This would be out of order within a meeting context, but I am not sure this occurred within a meeting.

While I agree with Josh, I would note that the Congregation may be able to express an opinion of the Board's decision or of the cantor himself (though I have known a cantor who would be "herself").

Since this committee was established by motion, I think we can assume this is not a standing committee.

If the chair has this power, a withdrawal of a motion is not the correct analogy. The correct analogy would be, could all the members of the assembly vote unanimously to rescind a motion. The answer is usually yes.

You may have to fill them separately, but this will be covered by the charter and any statutes that cover your municipality.

In this case, there are fewer than 100 voters and they are not. A total of 97 votes were cast.

"I s Z's motion to fix the time to which to adjourn in order?" Yes. "If so, why can this motion, which is in this context effectively just a motion to ignore the adjournment time, be adopted by majority vote while rescheduling the adjournment to another time, a weaker proposition, requires a two-thirds vote?" First, the motion to fix the time for the next meeting does not ignore the adjournment time. The assembly set what was effectively a rule in place and must abide with it or suspend it. What happens after the rule is no longer in effect is not covered by that rule.

I has seen, and presided over, assemblies where there have been more than 100 votes, some of whom carried proxies. No tellers were needed.

The purpose of a recount seems to be to count some vote results again. The answers that I am hearing seem to be contradictory. In once case, it was suggested that the secretary's recording of the vote could be recounted if the vote was by roll call, but that the secretary's recording of the vote could not be recounted if the vote was by a counted. Considering that the record could have created by the same person at the same meeting with the same voters, I have a problem with that. I'm open to persuasion, but I will go, at this point, that recount can only change the results if the actual count changes. A recount does not exist to correct a violation of the rules, especially when the assembly could suspend that rule in the first place. If, in a counted voice vote, the chair checks his notes and says, "Sorry, the chair inverted the numbers in the announcement. 64 yes should be 46 yes," that could change the result. I can persuaded on this and have changed my opinion several times, so go at it.

Why couldn't this be ratified as p. 124, ll. 32-34.

The motion to take the action at the regular meeting? Assume that at the special meeting, the members vote "to buy a new printer from Staples." This was not included in the notice. Joe, a member appointed by the same meeting, goes to Staples and buys a printer. At the regular meting a point of of order is raised that the motion "to buy a new printer from Staples," is void due to lack of proper notice. The chair rules that the is null and void; there is no appeal. Does a member move, "To reimburse Joe for the printer?" The same special meeting votes "to hire Sam as the bartender for the club," also without notice. At the regular meeting, point of order raised with the same result as above. Is the motion, "to hire Sam as bartender as of the club, retroactively from [the date he started]?" Conversely, do you envision some specific wording?

I would note, in some societies, the chair is granted the power to appoint all committees. This is one where I would like to see the bylaws.

If it is a small cabinet usually under 13, and he is otherwise a voting member of the board(p. 488, ll. 18-20).

Do you have a suggestion on the wording.