Joshua Katz

The better question is where RONR or your rules say the chair has the power to disallow comments that are not pre-screened. Absent such a reference, the chair has no such power. But this is, in part at least, a consequence of technology. What do your rules say about online meetings of this sort?

That works for me.

What is the alternative interpretation? He remains the maker of the motion, does he not?

What principle is this based on?

I do not see those as the same arguments. One is comparing A to B, the other is arguing that, A aside, B is, in fact, bad.

The debate then was on whether or not to amend the motion. The debate later will be on whether or not to adopt the amended motion.

If I'm at a convention, I can walk around the room. If I'm given a picture and want to know if that person is there, I can usually get a fairly reliable answer. I wouldn't say that they *must* know who is in the room (that word appears outside the quotation marks). I just think that, as a matter of fact, they're quite likely to. I don't see how it is relevant that they aren't acquainted with the other members.

I agree with Mr. Merritt. I would add that I do not see the logic in prohibiting a member from speaking against his own motion even after it has been amended. While it's true that he can signal his displeasure in other ways, the fact remains that, conceivably, he could be the only member opposed to the motion as amended - but that, if he could speak against it, he could persuade a majority to agree with him. Unlikely, but I don't see why he shouldn't be allowed to try.

I'm not buying a bright-line distinction here. When the chair rules on a point of order, it is always subject to appeal. So the question is whether the chair can rule first, or must follow the procedure for submitting a question to the assembly. I'm not aware of any circumstances where the latter is required, so I think the answer is the former. I might be inclined to agree on this in some philosophical sense, see also the Steel Seizure Cases (Jackson, J., concurring). But I'm not inclined to agree in terms of organization structure. If it were some open-ended question, maybe. But this

A deliberative assembly is one whose members can hear each other, which presumably includes knowing who is in the room. These, of course, are issues that rarely if ever get discussed with "regular" meetings. But ultimately, what rights RONR gives them does not matter. What matters is what your bylaws (and other rules, if the bylaws reference them) say about the matter. All RONR can tell you is that electronic meetings are not allowed unless your bylaws allow them, and that, in that event, your own rules should regulate things of this nature. On a side note, why? That's a Zoom setting. Wha

This is the sort of question that makes me think something has gone very wrong prior to this point.

Only members of the board have the right to participate in board meetings. The board may allow the staff accountant to speak as part of the treasurer's report if it wishes. One would expect the treasurer to give the treasurer's report, yes; it's in the name.

What do your bylaws say about their own amendment? If nothing, then it takes a 2/3 vote of the membership with notice, or a majority of the entire membership without.

I agree in general, but I'm curious what situation here you think could lead to this member (as opposed to those already granted such a status) being able to not pay dues.

Yes. If there is no dues-exempt option in the bylaws, then the member will need to pay dues (assuming, of course, the bylaws authorize dues).