David A Foulkes

My take on your use of "chain of command" suggests you're asking about levels of authority and who can over-rule whom, or something similar. Care to elaborate on what is at the heart of your question?

And the reason here is that you can undo yourself with this language. The quorum is the minimum number of voting members needed to be present at a meeting to transact business. Using majority (more than half): if you have 9 members, half is 4 1/2 which means you are looking at 5 members to make a quorum (assuming no half-members on the Board). Using "50% +1": 50% of 9 would be 4 1/2, plus 1, would be 5 1/2, and you now need 6 members to make a quorum. Just something to think about.

Whew! Can't tell you how glad I am about that!!

Additionally, it might bear mentioning that recusing yourself from voting due to some perceived conflict of interest doesn't necessarily remove your right to vote, which (although I can't cite chapter and verse at the moment) is a right that can only be curtailed through disciplinary procedures. So you're still a voting member, and thus count towards the quorum calculation.

I think p. 571 #4 might apply as well, depending on the interpretation, which is of course the responsibility of our Guest's organization. If they were to decide that "voice" meant strictly the ability to engage in debate, and not to make motions nor second them, then the granting of the right to enter into debate, enumerated as such in the bylaws, would seem to restrict from the member the rights (of the "same class") to make and second motions. The best option here, it seems to me, is to amend the bylaws to state explicitly what the intent is, which I suspect is merely to restrict the member from voting, which is easily done by stating that mere fact alone, and leaving out any qualification.

It sounds like you're looking at amending the bylaws to give supporting members the right to vote. A rule in the bylaws can't be suspended unless it includes provision for its suspension, or is a rule properly in the nature of a rule of order. This doesn't sound like one to me, but keep checking back to see what other posts bring.

And only to clarify, unless I have a different printing of the book, Mr. Martin's citation is found on page 453.

I suspect he could be "the immediate passed ___________". And yes, there's a pun buried in there.