Chris Harrison

Granted. But I would think that while presiding the Chair shouldn't have any official opinion on whether a motion comes before the assembly and by seconding the motion wouldn't he be opining that this motion should be considered?

In cases when the Chair has a duty to remain impartial (assemblies with about a dozen or more members or large committees) he should refrain from being partial (and seconding a motion demonstrates partiality). In cases when there is no duty of impartiality (committees and assemblies with about a dozen or fewer members) seconds aren't generally required. See FAQ #1.

Abstaining means that the member chooses not to vote on the question but still might participate in its consideration (speaking in debate, moving to amend the motion, etc). The usual understanding of what it means to recuse oneself (though RONR doesn't define the term) is that the member doesn't participate in the consideration of the question and doesn't vote on it.

If the office of President becomes vacant the VP becomes President (and any lower ranking VPs move up) unless the bylaws say otherwise (RONR p. 575 ll. 9-17). There is no other line of succession. If the President is absent at the Board (or any other) meeting the VP would preside and if the VP is also absent the Secretary (or another member if the Secretary is also not there) would call the meeting to order and preside over the election of a Chair pro tem who would preside for that session unless the P or VP arrives or the assembly decides to elect a new Chair pro tem (RONR pp. 452-453).

They actually could hold a meeting by teleconference using TTY machines or using a relay service (where one participant uses TTY and another can hear and speak and an operator does the "translation" between the two). Of course, doing that would make for a VERY long meeting (especially using the relay service).

It is up to you all to work out the details of your customized rules for filling a vacancy. See RONR pp. 570-573 for some help with that.

The Secretary pro tem would sign the minutes. The Secretary pro tem is whoever the assembly elects.

Though I would say that the Membership collectively is the high man on the totem pole because absent something in the bylaws (or an adopted motion) granting the officer(s) the exclusive authority to do something the Membership can (almost always) undo what was done in the name of the organization.

I would also say (though I may be pushing it a bit) that for the purposes of presiding over the election of a Chair pro tem that the Secretary would fall in that chain behind the VP.

I would suggest that you ask them what they think the purpose of a quorum and point out these citations both on RONR p. 20: and both of which shows how absurd their position is. However, from what you say I suspect common sense would escape them.

Probably so. I would agree if the language was unclear but it seems to be very unambiguous to me and shouldn't be subject to a revisionist interpretation just because the organization doesn't like what it says. That is what bylaw amendments are for.

I don't think the English language sentence can be reasonable interpreted to read that way. I think the bylaws are quite clear in what they mean even though it makes no sense. If the organization's intent was for a quorum to be 2/3 of the voting members I would suggest they take the great thinker Horton's words to heart "I meant what I said and I said what I meant."

Do your bylaws actually say that only members who have paid their dues have voting rights? Your bylaws say "At a general meeting, two thirds (2/3) of voting members present at any general meeting shall constitute a quorum" which unfortunately is very clear Although the bylaws define a quorum in a way that is not in line with how RONR defines a quorum as you noted you will need to follow your bylaws until you can amend them. That is up to you all to determine for yourselves. But you might want to take into account factors such as how far dispersed are the members (if everyone is in the same neighborhood a quorum might be able to be higher than if they are spread throughout the state or country).

Me too. What I don't get is why so many organizations puts terms in their bylaws when there is no definition in them (or the parliamentary authority) and no one has a clue what it means. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Oh well, it allows us to earn our virtual paychecks (which are worth less than the electrons they are not made out of) telling them that RONR doesn't define it.

RONR doesn't define "a member of good standing" and the implied definition supplied by members of the authorship team (stay tuned for the exact wording) isn't close to what your thinking is. Why don't you ask someone who would (or at least should) be in the know of the definition what it means?

RONR doesn't address Executive Decisions (so if the bylaws don't provide for it the President may be blowing smoke). However, what is the problem with buying a CD player? Was it bought with organization funds? If so, why did the Treasurer (or whoever controls the money) agree to pay for it?

Minutes are to be taken in Executive Session and if the Board wishes they can invite (and then uninvite) nonmembers by a majority vote (RONR pp. 92-93). However, the minutes should only reflect what was done at a meeting and not what is said (RONR p. 451). But, check those bylaws to make sure the Board has the authority to discipline anyone (if the bylaws don't grant that authority the Board doesn't have the authority).

See it now? I guess that is what the lawyers might call "double speak".

What are some of the methods? I can't think of any.

Yes, shame on the Board members. But even more shame on the Board Chair. That someone who has taken on the duty of presiding over the meeting is obviously so unfamiliar with the rules that he or she didn't immediately rein in the member is inexcusable.

A sham. A 2/3 vote is required to order the Previous Question (stop all discussion). See RONR pp. 189-201. Also, if the Board had about a dozen members or less present ordering the Previous Question generally shouldn't have been entertained to start off with (RONR p. 470)

That would be a bylaws interpretation question. See RONR pp. 570-573 for some principles to help with that.

<<Although, strictly speaking, there is no prohibition against a person's holding more than one office, it is understood in most societies that a member can serve in only one such capacity at a time, and sometimes the bylaws so provide. In such a case, if the person elected to two or more offices is present, he can choose which of the offices he will accept. If he is absent, the assembly should decide by vote the office to be assigned to him, and then should elect person(s) to fill the other office(s).>> RONR pp. 425-426 Because RONR mentions the bylaws so providing for only serving in one office that seems to imply that a restriction can't be imposed short of the bylaws imposing it.

Wouldn't that only be the case if the bylaws limits someone to one office at a time?