Shmuel Gerber

The person who was removed can raise a point of order at another meeting, but it will not affect the outcome of the motion(s) in question because the one vote would not have yielded a different result. But even while the member is improperly excluded, there may well be other members present who think the member must be given an opportunity to vote even though they didn't initially raise a point of order over the member's exclusion.

I was responding to this:

"23:7 Remedy for Violation of the Right to Vote. If one or more members have been denied the right to vote, or the right to attend all or part of a regular or properly called meeting during which a vote was taken while a quorum was present, a point of order concerning the action taken in denying the basic rights of the individual members can be raised so long as the decision arrived at as a result of the vote has continuing force and effect. If there is any possibility that the members’ vote(s) would have affected the outcome, then the results of the vote must be declared invalid if the point of order is sustained. If there is no such possibility, the results of the vote itself can be made invalid only if the point of order is raised immediately following the chair’s announcement of the vote. If the vote was such that the number of members excluded from participating would not have affected the outcome, a member may wish, in the appropriate circumstances, to move to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted (35), to move to Reconsider (37), or to renew a motion (38), arguing that comments in debate by the excluded members could have led to a different result; but the action resulting from the vote is not invalidated by a ruling in response to a point of order raised at a later time." (emphasis added)

No. Because: Although it is the duty of every member who has an opinion on a question to express it by his vote, he can abstain, since he cannot be compelled to vote.

The question was whether a member has a duty to vote, and the answer is yes: "Although it is the duty of every member who has an opinion on a question to express it by his vote, he can abstain, since he cannot be compelled to vote." (45:3)

There is no rule in RONR against accusing a staff member of lying, unless the staff member happens to be a member of the assembly (the board in this case).

This is explained in RONR (12th ed.) 26:6.

And what you all seem to be saying is that if a formal installation ceremony is prescribed, neither failure to hold it nor holding it affects the time at which the new officers assume office. 🙂

I assume you meant National Association of Parliamentarians.

Nonvoters are never treated as "having the effect of a no vote" under the rules in RONR. However, their failure to vote may have the same effect as a no vote would have on the outcome. They are simply not treated as having voted yes. When a vote of a majority of the entire membership is required, the failure to vote yes can have an effect on the outcome, even if a member is absent or abstains from voting.

I think that in order for such a rule (hypothetically, where it is not contrary to law) to be effective, it would have to be prefaced by something like "For purposes of determining whether the motion is adopted,…“. Otherwise, votes are being ascribed to members, against those members' will, who did not actually cast them. That's a lot closer, in my opinion, to a legitimate parliamentary rule, but it ought to make clear that it applies only with respect to a motion that actually comes to a final vote (or passage by unanimous consent), in a meeting at which a quorum is present.

I'm a bit skeptical about that as well. The definition of voting is expressing a choice. It does not seem legitimate to me to adopt a rule that counts a member as having made a particular choice when the member in fact made no such choice.

Already corrected. Just another instance of Muphry's Law in action. Well now it's my turn to complain about spell checking, because as soon as I typed in the wrong spelling (on purpose), autocorrect decided to update its previously correct suggestion to make it wrong the second time.

Since you're suing anyway, the correct spelling is "discernible". Hey, I could do this all day. Or at least ad nauseum ad nauseam. (Which perhaps I already have.)

I disagree. Although it may be de minimis.

The wording is faulty on the face of it since "an absent member's vote" is a fiction. Absent members do not vote, so you are fabricating votes that were not cast. I'm not sure exactly what else that violates, but it violates reason. It seems like an attempt to mimic the common misconception that an abstention counts as a No vote, when the threshold is a certain fraction of those present. I agree. The wording is nonsensical.

Tell the board members to read the introduction to Robert's Rules for Dummies: "When you need to make a point in a meeting, be prepared to cite the real Robert’s Rules. That is, Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (12th edition) Whatever you do, please don’t go waving my book around to your presiding officer unless your bylaws say that your parliamentary authority is Jennings’s Robert’s Rules For Dummies (which they should not!). Of course, I’m delighted that you’ve bought this book, but it’s not a parliamentary authority. It’s a book about one."

Not anymore.

"The quorum in a committee is a majority of its membership unless the assembly has prescribed a different quorum" (RONR 50:21) To get a majority of 50, you would need 26.

Unanimous consent -- whether as described in RONR for during a meeting, or as described in the statute you quoted -- is an alternative to the taking of a formal vote in a meeting. So there would not be any yeas or nays involved. If any board member objects to unanimous consent, then there is not unanimous consent at that time.

What do the bylaws say exactly? And how many names did the nominating committee submit?

May as well round up to 100% and make it unanimous.

Interesting. And they both came with cream-colored dust jackets and sold in the USA? I can tell you that the initial print run was with the maroon cover. There's also a deluxe hardcover edition with dark brown covers, gold-edged pages, and a ribbon marker. I don't know about the black-covered version. If you get a response from the publisher, I'd be interested to know what it is.

This is the first I'm hearing of this. Can you please post photos?

However, I don't think it would make much sense to complete the previous election at the next convention. It would be better to simply hold the election scheduled for that convention.