Atul Kapur

It doesn't sound like RONR applies here. It's up to the rules set by "entity that oversees compliance". You are free to describe the situation as you see it.

Were there more votes in favour than opposed? No. So there is not a majority of votes in favour and it fails. More generally, any tie vote (0-0, 1-1, or 2-2) means that there is not a majority of the votes cast being in favour. (majority = more than half). I'll be interested in hearing how a motion that no one wants to vote on even got made.

A Point of Order regarding this mistake by the chair needs to be raised in a timely manner. It is too late, now, to consider the amendment "failed after the fact."

Important question. In my first post, I explicitly assumed that nominations were occurring at a meeting.

Guest C. Renee, I will make it unanimous. If your bylaws actually say that there are two representatives per chapter, then that is the membership of the Council. Unless your bylaws explicitly say otherwise, each member of the Council (the 2 representatives per chapter) has the right to vote. We are, of course, basing our answer on your description of the bylaws.

Just because nominations occur at the May meeting does not prevent nominations from also occurring at the June meeting.

None of those are rights that are violated, so I still don't see any impropriety in suspending this rule in the nature of a rule of order. J.J., I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Whose rights are violated if the rule is suspended at a meeting one month before the election to open nominations early? I would agree that there is a problem if someone tried to suspend the rules to close nominations before the time specified in the bylaws, or other rule.

But I'm saying that whatever rule there is in the bylaws is a rule in the nature of a rule of order and, therefore, can be suspended at a meeting.

I would be very surprised if the bylaws/governing documents of this organization ("Hellenic Council"?) are truly silent about how many votes each member has. The custom falls to the ground if challenged and the governing documents need to be followed. If the bylaws are truly silent, then RONR says that each member has one vote. Review your bylaws carefully to see who, exactly, are members of the Council.

Wouldn't this be a rule in the nature of a rule of order? If they are having meetings, then I would think they could suspend the rules to open nominations at a meeting held more than one week prior to the election.

Yes, I am an emergency physician. I started down the path towards also being a professional parliamentarian through my experiences in the various organizations I belong to and where I have served in various offices. The shiftwork that's part of emergency medicine helps me to parcel out the hours.

That's a determination to be made by the Chair, subject to Appeal.

Okay, here's the correction. "If a motion to suspend the rules is voted down, it cannot be renewed by moving to suspend the rules for the same purpose at the same meeting, unless unanimous consent is given." RONR (12th ed.) 25:6 If a motion to suspend the rules to do action X fails, it is still in order to move to suspend the rules to do action Y. At least that's what RONR says, and that principle would still apply to your bylaws suspension, unless your bylaws say otherwise.

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?