Joshua Katz

In general, unless a counted vote is ordered, you'd record the motion as having carried.

I would also agree that, in practice, you cannot identify a majority present on a voice vote. A voice vote allows you to compare the yeas to the nays to see, roughly, if more voted yes than no, but won't help here unless the abstainers vote with the negatives (which wouldn't change anything else, since on such a vote, abstaining is, in effect, a negative vote).

A deliberative assembly is a gathering of members, in one place, able to see and hear each other, who will remain members even if they disagree with the decision. What you've described doesn't fit that description, in my opinion. The problem is that opinions change when people hear something discussed, which is exactly why approaching each individually doesn't get you a deliberative assembly, and hence the rules of RONR are inapplicable. What you're doing is more applicable to a decision by a committee to include an item in their report without meeting, which requires unanimous agreement.

As a side note, I fail to see the value of such a rule, or of the existing rule. I tend to favor putting senior people on the Executive Committee.

I'm not sure a 7 minute video is sufficient, but it's certainly necessary if you want to understand it. An easier way might be to set up two bitcoin wallets - a yes wallet and a no wallet. Everyone can then send a dollar to th walert of their choice. To prevent multiple voting, you make sure that the numbers of dollars add up correctly - if nt, vote again until they do (not ideal). Everyone can check that their dollar went to the right wallet. Then after the decision is made, you reverse all the transactions. This isn't nearly as good, though, since it doesn't ake use of the most secure parts of blockchains. There are companies that provide blockchain voting; one organization where I served as parliamentarian hired one for their annual convention to handle all balloted votes. Everyone was given a ballot with a barcode and filled in circles to ote. There was a piece to rip off with a copy of your barcode. You could go online and look for your barcode and make sure your vote was recorded correctly. This was using the blockchain idea, but with a pretty front-end.

https://followmyvote.com/online-voting-technology/blockchain-technology/

You could conduct the election using blockchain technology. It doesn't matter who tallies the votes because the votes are anonymous, but each person can look at the tally and, by matching their key with their vote, make sure their vote was correctly recorded.

Yes, what about that rule? So far as I can tell, that rule has nothing to do with the presence of quorum. If it is out of order to give reports under that rule without a quorum, then it is also out of order to do so with a quorum.

EIther a or b. The member can move to amend the agenda prior to its adoption. Presumably, the chair will rule them out of order, and the member can then appeal. Alternatively, the member can move to amend the agenda after its adoption, presumably with the same outcome. The main difference is that the latter requires a higher vote threshold for amending the agenda.

Just like the US Senate does!

And not then, either, since the approval of the minutes itself doesn't take effect until the next meeting, when the minutes including that approval are approved...

True, but my point is that it's also not a motion. My understanding of the exceptions is that they are the only business allowed - i.e. the only motions in order.

Why do we consider reports to be business that cannot be conducted without a quorum? As I understand it, business is "doing something." Such business often follows reports, to be sure, but what is the objection to hearing things without acting?

Aside from Dr. Stackpole's question, does the OP have some other issue in mind? I'm not seeing any.

Agreed, just trying to understand the question.

Or, if you want to punish him for making such claims, ask him the following questions: When does a meeting adjourn? If a motion is made, amended, and adopted, which version was adopted? It can't be the amended version, since according to you, the amendment doesn't take effect until the next meeting. Is there any way to, at a meeting, decide to spend money before the next meeting? Suppose a motion is adopted at meeting 1, and the minutes of meeting 1 are approved at meeting 2. That approval of minutes doesn't take effect, according to you, until the minutes of meeting 2 are adopted, presumably at meeting 3. But wait - that approval doesn't take effect until those minutes are approved at meeting 4...so no decision ever takes effect. It takes a majority to adopt the minutes if there is objection. A tie vote, of course, makes a motion fail. Therefore, it takes less than a majority to, in effect, rescind a motion adopted by a majority, in violation of the rule that it takes something greater to rescind than was required to adopt initially. A majority at one meeting can simply, by amendment, change the past and eliminate things done at a past meeting, even things done by a 2/3 vote (or 7/8 - consider the case of a convention where the board is empowered to adopt the minutes. Oh, speaking of which - in the event of disputed delegations, when may the people seated by the convention vote? Presumably only after the minutes are adopted...)

Perhaps because it was "called by the chair" rather than voted on?

The point of the rule is probably, in part, to get your meetings to make quorum, so it seems kind of silly to exclude meetings that don't get quorum. The key here is that you write "we only had 7 meetings this year," but, in fact, the correct procedure when there is no quorum is to call the meeting to order and note the absence of quorum, which avoids your situation and also keeps you in compliance with your bylaws. As to what to do about it now, that seems like a question of bylaw interpretation, which only your organization can decide. If I were a member of your organization, I'd want to count all 12 meetings. People who bothered to show up for those 5 meetings deserve some recognition, don't they, under your rules? Edited to add: Suppose someone only attended a couple of quorate meetings, but every inquorate meeting, while someone else attended 5 quorate meetings but only a couple inquorate meetings. If the inquorate meetings are excluded, one of these people gets to vote and the other doesn't, purely because other people didn't show up at certain meetings. That seems illogical.

Bylaws are the basic rules of an organization. Ground rules has no parliamentary meaning; it's a phrase people use but doesn't mean anything specific as far as governance structures are concerned.

Agreeing with Mr. Huynh, the legal effect will depend on your laws. From a parliamentary point of view, the motion passed and permission was granted. Statutes, though, may intervene. When I was on the board of zoning appeals, any action taken in reliance on a passed motion but before the minutes were approved was deemed to be at the risk of the appellant, by law. Your laws may vary, and the question should be directed to an attorney.

1. The fact that a motion can be adopted by unanimous consent is not a general get-out-jail-free card. 2. Not having been present at your board meeting, I don't know if this decision was made by unanimous consent. There is a difference between implying a motion with unanimous consent, and strong-arming people into a decision. 3. If there were a conflict between RONR and your bylaws (I don't think there is one here - a unanimous consent is tantamount to a vote) then your bylaws prevail. 4. A perhaps more interesting question is whether this person is validly on the board, and if not, if it is too late to raise a point of order.

It is likely that this PC is supposed to make its minutes publicly available. It is also likely that failing to approve the minutes is wreaking havoc on other people's schedules, who are likely to be hesitant to do certain activities until the minutes of the meeting granting the variance, special permit, or other permission are approved.

I am definitely not using it correctly, and they probably are muddling my thought process. I did well on my open memo, which means I have also lost the ability to write like a normal person.

I forgot about this, and stand corrected.

Back up a second. Some of us are still trying to figure out what a 2/3 majority is, let alone of what...