J. J.

So the recorded votes of how people voted, in the minutes, would be subject to a recount, but the recorded count could not be subject to a recount. I am back to having that problem. Perhaps it is related to this problem. Without asking the assembly to vote twice on the same question by the same method, how do get a recount on a counted standing vote?

I would point out that Expunge is a larger part of that, which could account for the difference.

I said I wasn't too sure. I can make two arguments: One, the assembly effectively suspended the rule that a 2/3 vote was needed. When there was no objection, it was too late to do anything about it. Two, this isn't a point of order, but a recount or a recapitulation, as there could be one for any other counted vote. Okay. What is if this was a roll call, and that a roll call was in order and after the secretary typed up the minutes, he threw away his tally sheet, but, properly recording how each person voted in the minutes. In the same situation, could that be recounted?

I can buy that.

Not a bad suggestion; I have suggested it on one occasion. Hopefully the meeting was taped. I have read about one case where that did occur.

No disagreement on that point. The total number of votes cast is 97. We do have more information than that.

I agree that the vote cannot be retaken (and that this would not be subject to a point of order, in case anyone is looking at that). So, in this case, the statement of the result in the minutes could not be subject to a recount?

There is a record, however, in the minutes. "For the motion, 64. Against the motion, 33. The motion was adopted." That is standard on a counted vote. I agree that you cannot recount a vote that wasn't counted in the first . Is the count, as recorded in the minutes, enough to trigger a recount. I can argue this, forcefully, either way.

A "recount" can be ordered on a standing counted (pp. 444-45), in an election at least. The vote was counted, so it should have been in the minutes. An uncounted standing vote could normally not be recounted, nor have a recapitulation done, for the reason you mention, no record of the vote. The chair counted a standing vote, and the count was properly included in the minutes. All parties agree that the was 64 to 33 and that this is less than the required two thirds vote. A member moves that the vote be recounted or recapitulated at the next meeting. Is that in order? If so, the secretary reads the result. Can the chair then announce that the result is not 2/3 being in favor and that the motion is lost?

The society's bylaws require that "Any expenditures above one thousand dollars shall require a two-thirds vote to be adopted." At a meeting of the assembly there is a motion to approve an expenditure of $2500.00. The chair calls for a standing vote, and the assembly adopts a motion that the vote be counted. The vote is taken and counted. The result is 64 in favor 33 against. The chair announced that the ayes have it and the motion was adopted. No one raised a point of order. The vote is recorded in the minutes Could, at the next meeting, a "recapitulation" be ordered. If so, should the chair state that the motion was not adopted as it did not receive the required 2/3 vote? I think those could be two separate questions.

I will note that a special meeting must be authorized in the bylaws. Provided that the meeting was properly called, permitting a nonmember to speak, or even to enter into debate, would neither invalidate the meeting nor the motion being considered.

I agree. I would also not that, if a motion were to be made by a nonmember, but properly entertained by the chair, and debated, it would be too late to raise a point of order. Such a point of order must be timely.

I would rule it to be the essentially the same question. Now, as always, the assembly is free to appeal that ruling. However, this still an academic question as there was no point of order or appeal.

First, a commissioner should to the board's solicitor to determine if it is required or advisable to be adopted by ordinance. If not, it should be handled as a regular main motion. Since we do not what is in it, nobody here could possibly say who this policy would apply to.

On this point I disagree with Alexis, partially. The 75%/25% split could have been amended by striking out 75%25% and inserting 60%/40%. The chair should have properly ruled the motion out of order that it was substantially the same question. However, a ruling, or a point of order, would have had to have been timely. Once discussion began on the question, it was too late to do anything about it. I do agree with Alexis it does not make a difference. Mr. B, effectively, moved to Rescind the motion at the next meeting, which was acceptable. His remark about the motion being out of order, in my view, was improper debate. RONR notes that, "Members have no right to criticize a ruling of the chair unless they appeal from his decision (p. 256, ll. 4-5)." It also confused the issue. Mr. B may move to rescind the motion, and discuss the merits of doing so in debate, but should not enter into if it was technically in order at the March meeting.

I think it is a question of evidence. The minutes provide evidence of what happened. That is what must be relied on to show what happened, at least initially.

The rules can be suspended to permit a nonmember to enter into debate, which is much more involved that asking someone to provide information (p. 263, fn.). With the consent of the majority a nonmember attending could be asked to provide information. NB: It is neither the right of the attendee nor the member to provide information. Further, the attendee may decline to to answer.

I would say having not enough members at the meeting to conduct business would effect the result.

Yes. I'm blaming that one on Spell Check!!!!

I don't, in the general case, but I think the bylaw could be interpreted that way. I do think that the bylaw, "No rule in these Bylaws many be suspended, unless that rule provides for its own suspension," would work. The advisability of adopting such a bylaw, is a different question.

First, I would note that, as Alexis said, nothing in the description indicates that some action must be stopped when Rescind is moved. It also indicates that an "unexcused part of an order can be rescinded or amended(p. 308, ll 21-23)." That indicates that rescind only could stop an action when the motion to rescind is adopted, not when it is made.

I think it works. It says nothing about if rules other than a bylaw can be suspended; that would default to the parliamentary authority says about other rules. Under 589, #3 , a rule that said, "No bylaw may be suspended," would yield to a clause in the bylaws that said a specific bylaw can be suspended, including something that isn't in the nature of a special rule. The phrase, " Other rules of the society may be suspended" kind of opens the possibility that a standing rule could be adopted to suspend a something in nature of a rule of order.

That can be done, provided that no one objects, I would suggest that the committee chair ask for unanimous consent that they be considered as a whole.

I do not agree, Having adopted RONR, the society is in a position where a rule in the bylaws cannot be suspended, unless that rule: A. Provides for its own suspension. B. Is in the nature of a rule of order. That bylaw removes case B, but it leaves the remainder of the bylaw exists. If there was a bylaw that said, "No one may enter the inner sanctum, except Shmuel and J. J.," and the words "and J. J." are removed, only Shmuel can enter the inner sanctum. That would not say that, everyone else except J. J. could go into the inner sanctum. Also p. 589, #4 would apply. Perhaps an even more succinct way of expressing this would be: "No bylaw may be suspended, unless that bylaw provides for its own suspension."

A rule in the bylaws cannot be suspended, in the normal case, unless the rule is in the nature of a rule of order or the rule provides for its own suspension. The second one seems to only remove the option of suspending a rule in the nature of a rule of order. The line, " Other rules of the society may be suspended if, and in the manner that, their suspension is provided for in the society's parliamentary authority," seems to be superfluous. It merely restates the existing rule.