Drake Savory

Eye wood two

The point is that before Speaker Reed, if you were in the chamber yet refused to vote or answer the quorum call, you were considered not present for the purpose of the quorum. Reed changed the rule so if you were physically there then you were counted towards the quorum whether you answered or not.

Before then, someone refusing to vote was considered not present for the purpose of a quorum. Although then it was simply not saying anything. So what would happen is, and I am simplifying the numbers, 48 vote yea, 1 votes nay, 51 abstain or are not present. Doesn't pass because only 49 of the 100 are "present". Then someone makes a quorum call and 51 don't answer or try to leave the hall thus no quorum. On January 29, 1890 after such a disappearing quorum vote, Speaker Reed locked the doors and ordered to clerk to record everyone in the room as present, which resulted in Representatives complaining that they weren't really there. However, the motion in question ultimately passed 162-3-163 with 179 needed for quorum. The rule abolishing the disappearing quorum became a House Rule on February 6, 1890.

That was the rule in the House of Representative until February 9, 1890 when Speaker Reed took action to change the rules to prevent the "disappearing quorum". After that, voting "present" did not change the quorum numbers. Also, are your sure the quorum is 50%+1 and not just a majority? I hear people equate these two measures all the time but they are not. They differ by one (unless you count half-a-member) for an odd number of members.

Quorum depends on the number of people physically there. It has absolutely nothing to do with the number voting.

If the bullying applies to meeting conduct would the President be open to discipline? Things like "Vote for the motion on feeding the feral cats or I will make your life miserable." or "If you debate for appointing Tom Landers chair of the Painting Committee you WILL regret it."

Is it part of a larger Church organization like the United Methodist Church or The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod? They may have overarching bylaws that apply to all churches.

What do your bylaws/standing rules about the location of the meetings? If it is "the council meeting room in the town hall of Hincky" that would be different than just "the town hall of Hincky". If he were still in the lobby one could argue that he was still in the location of the meeting therefore quorum was not lost.

There might be a possibility that the OP didn't mention. Perhaps upon recusal the member (for whatever reason) left the meeting temporarily. Then it would indeed affect quorum.

Quorum is based on members physically present at the meeting; it has nothing to do with how many people vote. If you have a quorum then people recusing themselves, voting "present", abstaining, etc. does not affect the quorum. Therefore it was a proper vote and the result stands.

As a note, if there are no officers as of January 1st the assembly would need to appoint a Chair Pro-Tem.

I'd say right here is your answer. The Board appoints the committee, not the property manager.

Is there a Vice-President? Because under most bylaws they would take over if the President is removed from the Chair.

I think timeliness needs to account for a moment to process what just happened.

"You may speak to your motion." In my scenario it is followed by "I believe this would help ..." "Mr. President, I rise to a Point of Order. The Chair has not stated the question."

Here is a question related to this thread: Maker makes a motion. It is seconded. Chair starts debate. After a sentence or two (debate has started but timely objection). Member makes a Point of Order that the Chair did not state the question. Chair rules the Point to be well taken. The maker immediately asks to withdraw the motion before the Chair can properly state the question. Is the motion withdrawn?

It could be for very large values of 2.

Rule 45:5 directly says they can.

And it should be noted that a convention's standing rules only need a majority vote to Suspend, not a 2/3 vote IF you wish RONR rules (assuming that is the adopted parliamentary authority) to apply. If the RONR rules gets in the way as well, then it would need a 2/3 vote. Rule 59:37. In this case, I believe a majority vote is sufficient. Is there a rule in RONR that would interfere with a motion to amend the committee report?

I agree to this. I would have it be that the Parliamentarian shall be in attendance at the request of the Chair including executive sessions. That way it is a right of the Chair to have an advisor at their discretion.

You can rescind the election if they have not been notified 35:6(c)

My experience with questions on this board and organizations I belong to in dealing with honorary members, quasi-members, affiliate members, members that do not have the right to do X, etc. that members often do not understand what it means to be a member.

That is a crucial question. Let's assume someone has been in office for 2 terms and you want a 3 term limit. Do you want ... Them to serve at most one more term? Them to serve at most three more terms (five total)? Be exempt from term limits since they were first elected when there were not any limits (like the 22nd Amendment)?

How can the resigning member retake their seat if it is not vacant? Wouldn't the motion that filled the vacancy have to be rescinded first?

I disagree. There are people that an organization may want to have the right to attend meetings but yet in no way want to be considered a member. For example, a planning commission may want the city mayor or city attorney to be allowed in all meetings due to their specialized knowledge that can assist them.