laser158689

I think you would also need to ensure that only certain folks can participate in the Zoom poll, if the zoom is open to the public. I don't believe that's a current feature, though. A quick Google search suggests the use of breakout rooms for this.

This seems to point to the need for some "Best Practices" documentation that could be shared from the RONR FAQ page, maybe some sample rules for handling zoom-based (and other common platforms eg Google Meets) meetings.

Just to note that open meetings on zoom have also introduced us to "zoom bombers" (folks who take the opportunity to "prank" the assembly, often with vulgar audio & video). Also, the ability to mute participants (and ignore emojis and actions and other alerting methods) can empower the worst instincts in many a chair, where they could not be so brazen at an in-person meeting.

@Dan Honemann What format is the file/data on the CD-ROM?

I guess I could maybe copy/paste out of the kindle, but 1) that's a lot of work and 2) don't want to violate the IP.

Is RONR available in a plain text format or other common electronic format for research purposes? This is intended for the authors. Happy to discuss my semi-baked idea privately.

I have to add a caveat that electronic voting systems are fallible, too. Some of them are "audience response" systems that only need to be "close" most of the time, as opposed to "correct" all of the time. They also may require a good deal of user training, despite the apparent simplicity. You bylaws need to account for the nuances of the technology. When there is a display of a recorded vote, and an individual sees that their vote is recorded incorrectly, do you have a process to handle that? What if the electronic voting system goes down entirely? Partially (say for only those not physically in the room)? Do some serious thinking about all of the modes of failure, user error, and the individual rights you want to protect.

@Gary Novosielski I suggested Previous Motion as a solution to the OP's problem, not the "Rules protecting the Minority".

See the motion Previous Question (§16) to end discussion/amendments and vote on the motion. Requires a two-thirds vote.

How was the "election" disposed of (Postponed? Committed? Something?) Did the special meeting adjourn (finally) without a vote? Were there other main motions after the "election"?

In CT, municipal legislative bodies only have authority to reject tentative labor contracts. As such, motions on contracts are phrased as rejections. I'm sure there other subjects where that's the only way to properly phrase the desired action, but I expect that's a very small set.

I don't know when these practices developed in the 90+ years the body has been meeting, and generally, they are easier for the 230 members to follow when handling 20+ items every meeting. It does have some "traps and gaps", though!

My Town's legislative body does things in a unique, but practical, manner that doesn't always match RONR. Our standing committees often have overlapping responsibilities, and each is automatically assigned the same items that will come before the body, eg buying property for a park would involve Budget, Finance, Land Use, P&R and maybe more committees. As a result, they report on the item when it comes up rather than covering multiple items in a single report in the standard order of business. Often those reports are ordered based on which chair is closest to the podium. Once they all report, we consider their motions, in order of precedence. This month, there are multiple overlapping & conflicting items. There are multiple known amendments for the one that will come up first. When it comes up, there's a "first mover" advantage (or at least the first mover could be very limiting on what happens next.) Yes, our non-conforming practices put us in this situation.

@Gary Novosielski News to most of the town as well! Apparently, the Board of Health has some authority to pass health-related ordinances, which included a noise ordinance. There is a recurring desire to ban gas-powered leaf blowers, so some "jurisdictional" question of BoH vs town legislative body.

Town legislative body was debating an amendment to an existing ordinance. Another Town body (which originally created that ordinance and believed that gave it sole authority over it) rescinded the entire ordinance (in its view, to allow the legislative body to act). So, the legislative body will be presented with taking up again a motion to amend an ordinance which no longer exists.