Atul Kapur

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")

I'll take a somewhat contrary opinion here, @Dave Bennett. I think that 5.1 and 5.1.1 of the national bylaws are very broad, broad enough that the National bylaws could impose any requirement on the branches. So if these provisions were incorporated in the national bylaws, then all branches would be bound by them. You say this motion was adopted by a board resolution. Can the board amend the bylaws by itself (CNCA would give it that authority, if it applies to your association)? If the board amended the national bylaws to include these requirements, then I think the branches would be bound by them.

At that point, if I were the presiding officer, I would rule that it is not a question of privilege urgent enough to interrupt the pending business.

I am of the opinion(in the minority on this forum) that, depending on the complexity of the procedures, filling a blank may be appropriate. However, you have said it is definitely not so I won't pursue it in your situation. Another option is to move that the discussion of the subject of the procedure to be followed be dealt with in committee of the whole, quasi committee of the whole or informally (depending on the size of your assembly). See Section 52 and particularly 52:28 for more information.

Just to make sure I'm clear, would it be accurate to say "—indicating its exact content as described in 10:47—" ? This makes it even clearer that "exact content" does not equate to "exact language" as @Joshua Katz and (half of?) @J. J. had understood.

As Mr. Brown stated, The motion that failed at the one meeting could not be brought back to the same meeting (other than through reconsideration). Under RONR, it may be introduced again at a future meeting. But you have told us that there are state laws that you believe apply. Consult a lawyer about how those.

Here's one way: Is the motion pending at that moment?

I agree with Mr. Martin. The minute should record what actually happened at the meeting. However, that was an unnecessarily convoluted way of fixing the agenda. It would have been much simpler for the person to move to amend the agenda to correct the date. This motion formally requires a two-thirds vote (or a majority of the entire membership) but is usually handled by unanimous consent. ("Is there any objection to correcting the date of the minutes in the agenda? There's no objection so that correction is made.")

That isn't what anyone is saying. If a motion is under consideration, then speaking about the motion is "debate" so the guest would be participating in the debate and a suspension of the rule would be required. When Mr. Brown and Mr. Mervosh discuss a guest speaking at a meeting, they mean other than speaking to a motion (for example, I used to attend a youth group that raised money at each annual meeting for a charity in the meeting city. We allowed someone from the charity to speak at the meeting to tell us about their work). No rule needs to be suspended for this.

Two points, 1 - The minutes should reflect what happened. Describe the situation as best you can. 2 - The chair acted incorrectly. "If a motion is offered in a wording that is not clear or that requires smoothing before it can be recorded in the minutes, it is the duty of the chair to see that the motion is put into suitable form—preserving the content to the satisfaction of the mover—before the question is stated. The chair must never admit a motion that the secretary would have to paraphrase for the record." RONR (12th ed.) 4:18 If the member refused to repeat it, the chair should have refused to "state" the motion (4:15) which is the step required before the assembly can consider the motion. But to go back to Point One: The minutes describe what happened accurately, not what should have happened.

I've seen this in several public bodies that operate under "open meeting" laws, as a way to prevent surprises. However, this is not found in RONR and would need to be in your special rules of order.

"Abstaining from Voting on a Question of Direct Personal Interest. No member should vote on a question in which he has a direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members of the organization. For example, if a motion proposes that the organization enter into a contract with a commercial firm of which a member of the organization is an officer and from which contract he would derive personal pecuniary profit, the member should abstain from voting on the motion. However, no member can be compelled to refrain from voting in such circumstances." RONR (12th ed.) 45:4 [emphasis added] As you are apparently not using the disciplinary procedures detailed in Chapter XX (in which case the individual is not in the room while the vote is taken, 63:33e&f), the member retains all their rights.

The answer, my friend, is blowing in your bylaws. The answer is in your bylaws. [with apologies to Mr. Zimmerman] While you're looking at the bylaws to see who has the authority to call a meeting, also check if the president has the authority to cancel a meeting. Nothing in RONR gives them that authority, so it would have to be in the bylaws.

The only time you need a motion is if the report includes a recommendation that needs to be adopted or implemented. Otherwise, the reports "are usually for purposes of information only." If the assembly approves or adopts the report, then you are "endorsing every word of the report—including the indicated facts and the reasoning—as its own statement" See RONR 12th ed, 48:19 and 51:13 If you are not really wanting them to decide, why are you pretending to let them decide? Who has authority to adopt the strategic plan? If it is the membership, then you cannot properly deny them the opportunity to vote to adopt -- or not adopt -- the plan. If it's another body, such as an executive board, and you are just informing the membership, then just inform the membership. It seems disingenuous to only give them the opportunity to adopt it and not the opportunity to state that they don't agree. "Please vote to adopt the plan; we think it is a good plan and hope you agree."