Atul Kapur

First, it is not clear from the description given that the suspension applies to the entirety of the bylaws. Second, I am reassured by the fact that all three attempts to suspend failed. It shows me that the threshold is reasonable and suspension isn't occurring frequently. And I prefer this provision (suspension) over a no-notice bylaws amendment. A suspension is only for the current meeting, rather than a permanent change.

I'm saying that I do not see a problem with the provision that is there in the by-laws. If they want to have the right to suspend portions of their bylaws, they can have it. It's application in certain situations will cause difficulties, but they have the right to do it.

I don't see the problem; just ignore them during the vote. Same as you would do if someone stood up during a vote and tried to raise a point of order during voting during a physical meeting. Not sure I see the problem with it. Didn't the agenda have any breaks scheduled?

but your first post said,

I seem to recall this coming up in a different thread (that I cannot find). As I recall, the 2018 resolution was abut lobbying for the government to designate "Deaf History Month." Without seeing the exact wording of the two motions/resolutions, it's hard to say whether the 2020 resolution is out of order.

I'm not sure what part of this can be blamed on Zoom. RONR (12th ed.) 45:6 is quite clear: "When a vote is being taken, no interruption is permitted from the time that any member has actually voted until all have presumably voted, unless as sometimes occurs in ballot voting, other business is being transacted during voting." Happens at physical meetings, too.

Here's where I'm getting hung up and request clarification. Bear with me as I explain my train of thought. This particular fundamental principle requires unanimous consent (because any individual member can demand that the motions be separated). But earlier you've said to which you later added, "or higher level rule" in the situation of two motions being considered at the same time. So that would mean that this fundamental principle includes a provision for its suspension by a means less than a bylaw (i.e., unanimous consent). That would be the only fundamental principle to do so, correct? If so, it surprises me because it's counter to my understanding of fundamental principles.

I think the part I've bolded hasn't been made explicit previously. It does seem to significantly enfeeble the fundamental principle, since this exception is very broad.

The answers, in this thread, were all consistent. The facts presented here are significantly different than the previous discussion. Despite the fact that the motion was put in writing, what matters is what question the chair put to a vote. RONR is very clear that, "the exact wording the chair uses in putting the question is definitive, and the wording in the minutes must be the same." (12th ed.) 4:34 This is why I said before that any uncertainty in what was decided was a sign of bad chairing. "the chair proceeds to put the question—that is, he puts it to a vote after once more making clear the exact question the assembly is called upon to decide." Ibid 4:34 (emphasis added) Agreeing with Mr. Martin and Mr. Katz, No. To amend the motion that is under consideration, you need to, as you ask Yes.

ASPA can also be adopted by a vote of the majority of the entire membership. And only a negative vote can be reconsidered. RONR (12th ed.) 35:2 and also Table II(13) on t8-t9

Unless I'm misunderstanding the phrase "higher level rule," doesn't the exception in RONR (12th ed.) 25:4 challenge that assertion? The wording in that paragraph refers to the rule that no member can make two motions at the same time. But with their making, two motions are then being considered at the same time. For example, if someone otherwise ineligible to do so, moves to suspend the rules and reconsider a particular motion, when the assembly votes isn't it considering both whether to suspend the rules and whether to reconsider the vote on the motion?

Equal to or more than 2/3. Normally, it depends on the number who vote, not the size of the board. If all 5 member vote, then you need 4 to vote in favour. 2/3 of 5 is 3 and 1/3. So 3 votes in favour would be less than that.

I don't see it that way. In preferential voting a member is only casting one vote in any particular round of voting. They are "locking in" what they would do under particular future circumstances for further rounds, but are this is different from casting more than one vote. I agree that preferential voting needs to be in the bylaws, but that's because it requires that a candidate who finishes last in any round is ineligible for election. RONR (12th ed.) 46:32n1 Are you suggesting here that giving the chair a second vote is a form of weighted voting?

What is the "original item"? Was it a motion, perhaps with amendments pending? In that case, the motion and any amendments pending at the time of referral come back and are dealt with ahead of the committee's recommendations.

Weldon, how would you balance 46:40, as you quoted above, with 46:30? Specifically, do you think that 46:30 means that it requires a suspension of the rules, or simply an incidental (or incidental main) motion?

As a theoretical question? The election to fill the vacancy required notice. RONR (12th ed.) 32:7 Doing it immediately upon accepting the recognition violated the rights of absentees (if any). So, on a point of order, the election could be declared null and void. Ibid 23:6(e) There is a question if there were no absentees at the meeting where the resignation was accepted. If there are no actual absentees to protect, does the point of order become subject to the timeliness requirement? I would say yes.

No. There is a requirement that the point of order has to be raised in a timely fashion. In this case, that's before anyone debates the motion to Reconsider. After that, it's too late to raise that point of order. Same as if the motion wasn't seconded before debate started.

Let's take as fact that the Zoom meeting is authorized. The Annual Meeting is a perfectly appropriate place to raise the question. Someone at the Annual Meeting, preferably before the results are announced, could raise a point of order that the election rules in the bylaws were breached and, therefore, the election should be declared null and void. The presiding officer would then rule. (If I were the presiding officer, I would rule the point not well taken, in agreement with Mr. Martin.) The ruling would be subject to an appeal. I'm not sure why you think that a special meeting would be preferable.

You have nothing to apologize for. You asked whether your understanding was correct. That's the purpose of this forum. Don't let anyone discourage you from asking questions.

I believe that the organization that conducts the test, the NAP, has information on this on their website.

". . . the board has only such power as is delegated to it by the bylaws or by vote of the society’s assembly referring individual matters to it." RONR (12th ed.) 49:5

If there is truly no opposition, then you can adopt these amendments to the bylaws all at once by unanimous consent. You could also adopt a motion to Suspend the Rules to accomplish the same thing. Ensure that members have the opportunity to request that any of the proposed amendments be voted on separately. I understand that this applies to adoption of bylaws for the first time and to revisions. But I don't see this used for one amendment to the bylaws, or even several amendments.

The association can also create a Minutes Approval Committee so that you dont have to wait for the next meeting to have the minutes approved.

Generally agreeing with Mr. J, I do have a question as to whether these were both amendments to the bylaws?

Look at the exact language regarding the terms of office of your officers. The incumbents may remain in office or you may have vacancies, depending on what your bylaws say.