Atul Kapur

Then it is highly unlikely that anyone will object that you are reading your speech. You may want to suggest that the organization purchase copies of RONR In Brief for members rather than (or in addition to) the full book. Much more digestible and likely to be read.

Whether there is an overreach of authority or an absence of it, or both, it sounds like any remedy will require you seeking legal counsel, as you have been advised by others.

Note that the fuller quote (in both 33:20 and 43:26) is "any paper or book as part of his speech" (emphasis added). So it is not at all curious that this is being differentiated from writing down and reading his speech. It appears clear that the intent is to prevent reading from work of others without permission. In several parliaments descending from Westminster (e.g. Canada, Australia, New Zealand) there were Standing Orders or a custom that members not read their speech. The typical defence used by a member accused of doing so was, "I am merely following my notes closely." If, @Eli Zupke, a point of order is raised, you may try that. [In Canada's Parliament, at least, this discouragement of reading speeches has fallen by the wayside].

Since this is an RONR forum, "A deliberative assembly that has not adopted any rules is commonly understood to hold itself bound by the rules and customs of the general parliamentary law –-or common parliamentary law (as discussed in the Introduction)–-to the extent that there is agreement in the meeting body as to what these rules and practices are." RONR (12 ed.) 1: 5

I think this is a quirk in the way that Zoom rounds percentages. I believe that there is a way for Zoom to give the raw numbers, at least to the host if not to everybody. That would solve the problem of actually figuring out whether there were more votes in favour versus opposed. So the above answers are noting that the 50% in favour is more than the 49% opposed, and interpreting that as indicating there were more yes votes than no votes.

The latter. "...ballots cast for an ... ineligible candidate are treated instead as illegal votes—that is, they are counted as votes cast but are not credited to any candidate or choice." RONR (12th ed.) 45:32 Also see the Trustees Report in 45:37 which shows how to record ballots cast for an ineligible candidate. And remember that that, under RONR, a candidate must receive a majority of the votes cast by those eligible to vote and registering any evidence of having some preference. So that includes ballots with write-ins for ineligible persons or other illegal votes.

It's not necessary, but if the body accepts it when they approve the minutes, then it's fine. Unanimous consent, in RONR, means that no one votes against the proposal or motion. Abstentions do not take away from unanimous consent. See RONR (12th ed.) 4:58-63

If you are following the procedure in small boards, found at 49:21.

Actually, it does say exactly that. So, unless your bylaws actually say "only members nominated by petition are eligible to be elected" then write-ins are allowed. And it has to be the bylaws that makes the non-petitioned person ineligible. RONR (12th ed.) 46:32n1

An appeal "Can be applied to any ruling by the presiding officer except that: a) if a point of order is raised while an appeal is pending, there is no appeal from the chair’s decision on this point of order, although the correctness of the ruling can be brought up later by a motion covering the case; and b) when the chair rules on a question about which there cannot possibly be two reasonable opinions, an appeal would be dilatory and is not allowed." SDC 2 of Appeal RONR (12th ed.) 24:3(2)

This rule is not suspendible, unless the bylaws allow for its suspension. It is not in the nature of a rule of order.

Not quite. "At a session that already has an order of business, an agenda can be adopted by a majority vote only if it does not create any special orders and does not conflict with the existing order of business; otherwise, a two-thirds vote is required (see also 25:12)." RONR (12th ed.) 41:61 If the organization meets at least as frequently as quarterly, and has adopted RONR as its parliamentary authority, then it has an "existing order of business" and an agenda that conflicts with that requires a 2/3 vote. Or, in other words, "In organizations that have adopted this book as parliamentary authority and that have not adopted a special order of business, this series of headings is the prescribed order of business for regular meetings, unless the periods intervening between consecutive regular meetings are usually more than a quarterly time interval (see 9:7)." 41:6 [In my experience, agenda is the most common area where I see organizations operating differently from what is in the text, by custom].

It's a common myth that a tie vote on a motion is inconclusive. A motion requires a majority vote in support (more than half) to be adopted. A tie is not more than half so the motion is defeated.

It sounds like there are laws that apply that required the two to abstain. If so, then the answer to your question is found in that law. As for RONR, quorum refers to the number of members present, not the number who cast a vote.

So, first, stop looking at the online version. It's from 1915. And don't buy the 11th edition, get the 12th. Re: expediency. It is very expedient for the chair (not the secretary) to say, "The minutes of [date] meeting have been distributed. Are there any corrections to the minutes? There being no corrections, the minutes are approved." If you have distributed them, there is no need to actually read them out at the meeting. In fact, the chair could do all the outstanding minutes in one sentence: "The minutes of [date1], [date2], [date3], . . ., and [date 8] meeting have all been distributed previously. Are there any corrections to the minutes? There being no corrections, the minutes are approved."

From this section of your post, I infer that "voting power" is related to having paid dues. Is this correct? And does "ten percent (10%) of the total households eligible for membership" mean 23 26 of the households (10% of 252 = 25.2 and 23 26 is the next whole number larger than 25.2)? I only raise these to show that your wording could be clearer. That is, I don't need the answers to these questions -- you do. I generally agree with Mr. Martin's answer above.

That applies during the meeting. From the OP's mention of 'a media source" it sounds like this particular event occurred outside the meeting, where the president is free to give their opinion.

For the employee, I don't think that there is any requirement that the bylaws need to authorize disciplinary measures. That would be part of the employee-employer relationship.

Why would re-elections be void if this nomination process is not followed? We've both agreed that write-in votes are legal, so the incumbents can be re-elected without being officially nominated.

No, not at all. The language you have quoted says nothing to disqualify votes cast for non-nominees.

Many statutes that apply to corporations allow the board to take action with the written approval of every member of the board instead of a motion being voted on at a meeting. If such a law applies to your organization, then any abstention (such as those two members who are not responding) would mean that you have not met that requirement. In other words, if that law applies to you you cannot approve the minutes "based on a quorum" this way. Check if that type of law applies to your organization.

And, even then, that would be a bylaw provision that is clearly in the nature of a rule of order and, therefore, suspendible. Another way to prevent discussion on the motion is to object to its consideration once it is moved. If there is 2/3 in support of the objection, it doesn't get heard at all. You would have to do this every time it is moved.

Which I acknowledged in my first post on this thread and was the reason I had no intention to pursue the matter. However, the subsequent discussion "dragged me back in".

When you get beyond Lesson One and move on to a more advanced understanding 😀, note that 12:92 says "Filling blanks, although not a form of amendment in itself, is a closely related device by which an unlimited number of alternative choices for a particular specification in a main motion or primary amendment can be pending at the same time." In this situation, the question would be, "What procedure will we choose to follow?" and there are multiple options (or "alternative choices"). As Dr. John as stated, the options include A (procedure ABC) and B (procedure DEF). Option C (no change) would be achieved by defeating the motion.

Them's the breaks (aka "You Can't Always Get What You Want")