Shmuel Gerber

One thing is certain: the rule should say "whoever," not "whomever."

What should happen is that the chair says, "There is less than a majority in the affirmative, and the motion is lost."

I think you misread the original discussion and continue to have the wrong impression. Check out this https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/26031-canceling-special-meetings/?do=findComment&comment=147776 and this https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/26165-constitutional-change/?do=findComment&comment=148730

I think there's been enough metadiscussion. Any more and I may have to lock the thread.🙂

Thank you. I wasn't able to download the file so I couldn't see the exact format, but I wonder where they got it from to begin with.

I think Mr. George is trying to understand FAQ 6.

Actually, I've never quite understood this. What difference does it make whether a provision in the bylaws allowing for a suspension of the rules is contained within the provision being suspended or within some other provision? In other words, if provision A says that provision B can be suspended, would anyone argue that provision B cannot be suspended because provision B does not allow for its own suspension?

Are you saying that blockchain voting technology is so advanced, it could be mistaken for slips of paper?

RONR defines ballots as "slips of paper on which the voter marks his vote" (p. 412, ll. 13-14). A machine is not the same as slips of paper in many respects, including things such as verification of the totals and recounts, and even in terms of confidence that a member's vote has been accepted.

No. (Unless you're talking about a member of a parent committee who is not a member of the actual subcommittee that is meeting.)

I don't see any problem with voting by this method if authorized by a special rule of order or a convention standing rule, but it is not clear that it would fulfill a requirement in the bylaws that a vote be taken by ballot.

A meeting is a meeting -- all members of the body that is meeting must receive the proper notice, regardless of whether the meeting will enter into executive session for some or all of the meeting time. What do you mean by "knowing that not ALL can attend"?

Page 43, line 17.

You ended up with a bowl of salad for a soup?

🙂

Did you substitute "pronouns" for "prepositions"?

Or at least disabuse them of it. 🙂

There's no rule against it. However, "In debate, the maker of a motion, while he can vote against it, is not allowed to speak against his own motion. He need not speak at all, but if he does he is obliged to take a favorable position." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 393) Nobody is allowed to cast two votes on the same motion unless the body's rules specifically say so. In addition, if this is obviously a tactic to "force" the second motion to be adopted after the first one is defeated, the members on the other side can simply create a tie vote on the second motion as well.

Yes. If the bylaws say what the dues shall be, then a motion to "temporarily override the normal dues amount" obviously conflicts with the bylaws.

But, as shown in your first quotation, RONR does not say that the word "meeting," by itself, should generally understood to refer to "session" unless a distinction is made. It speaks only of interpreting "common expressions such as 'regular ... meeting,'" etc. In general, the word needs to be interpreted in context.

Such a motion would be valid only if adopted as a bylaws amendment, and it would have to specify the meaning of "temporarily."

This doesn't have much bearing on your question, but I will point out that whoever put that phrase in parentheses into this sentence in the constitution and bylaws probably wasn't thinking very much about it. At the next meeting of the general body, make and adopt a motion to declare the board's resolution null and void because it conflicts with the bylaws.

Meaning a fair amount of respect, or not much at all? 🙂

There are two motions -- the main motion previously adopted, and the motion to amend something previously adopted. Suppose that the society's annual banquet is to take place sometime before the next regular meeting. Also suppose that the main motion "to charge guests a $50 admission fee for the society's annual banquet" was adopted (let's call this Motion X), and then a member moves "to amend the previously adopted motion regarding the banquet admission fee by striking out '$50' and inserting '$55'" (let's call this Motion A). There is no rule that prevents laying Motion A on the table simply because it might not be taken from the table at the current session. And if it isn't taken from the table at the current session, then obviously there would be no point in taking it from the table at the next session. However, I agree that postponing Motion A to the next meeting would be absurd and out of order, because Motion X will have already been carried out by then.

It's not one or the other. The board may need to interpret the bylaws just as much as the assembly of members may need to. I agree that if the board disagrees with the assembly, the assembly's interpretation prevails.