Matteo

In our organisation, the quorum depends on the number of voting countries present, not individual members. If a country is prevented from voting for a position because their only delegate is running for that position, would they still be counted in the quorum even if they can't vote? I want to propose a bylaws amendment to allow delegates to vote for the position they are running for. So my question is if that would be correct and fair considering RONR and our peculiar voting system.

I am the parliamentarian for an international association which meets twice early. During our assemblies, we adopt a country-based voting system. Members convey their preferences to a representative of their country, who will then cast two votes for the whole delegation on each pending question or election. Quorum is met when 40% of countries with voting rights are present. Our bylaws say that candidates for an officer position can't place votes in the election for that position. This entails that if a national delegation is composed of a single person, that country won't have the right to vote on a position in case their single representative happens to run for it. In my opinion, prohibiting candidates from voting for themselves could pose challenges. For example, assume that excluding candidates from voting for a position leads to the absence of a quorum; this creates a problematic scenario, making it impossible to conduct a vote or for some candidates to run. Hence, this restriction could potentially violate the fundamental rights of a member to run for any position and to participate in the voting process. Others, however, may argue that it is also unfair to allow candidates to cast two votes for themselves if they are the only delegate from their country, as it might give them an advantage over other candidates. Based on RONR, I understand that no rule prevents nominees for an officer position from voting for themselves. So I wonder, what would be more correct, to allow candidates to vote for themselves or not?

The association I am a member of convenes twice a year into regular sessions of the General Assembly, which adopt the RONR as their parliamentary procedures. During the session's first meeting, the President of the association is ex officio the presiding officer of the GA; the Assembly then proceeds to elect as its first order of business a Chairman, a Parliamentarian and an Election Committee among its members. According to our bylaws, the Chairman is not allowed to participate in discussions and make motions, but he can state his intention to entertain a motion and wait for a member of the GA to move it. For Example, when it's time to adjourn, the Chair would say: "The Chair would like to entertain a motion to adjourn the meeting" and a member of the Assembly then requests the floor and says: "I so move". After that, the motion is seconded and placed before the Assembly. While this rule guarantees the maximum neutrality from the Chair, it also hinders his ability to effectively preside over the Assembly as it prevents him from making motions related to the conduct of the meeting. I haven't read anywhere in the RONR that the Chair should not be allowed to make motions, and I am considering proposing a bylaw amendment to change this rule. Would allowing the Chair to make motions affect his ability to stay neutral?

Thank you so much for your accurate answers, you've been both very helpful.

Hello, I'm new on this forum. I registered because I have been the parliamentarian twice during the General Assembly of an international association I am a member of, and during my experience, I encountered some situations which raised questions I didn't know how to answer and that the RONR couldn't help me clarify. Could you please help me understand these aspects? My first doubt concerns how the rules of debate apply to the Q&A session that is generally opened after a person's report, or the presentation of a particular topic. I know the RONR say that nothing can be debated if there is no motion on the floor. Does this mean that opening the floor for questions and comments after a report/presentation is not a correct procedure? In case it is possible to do so, how do the rules of debate apply here? In particular, if the Assembly wants to ask many questions to the Presenter/Reporter, does the Chair have to take all the questions first and then let the person reporting answer? Otherwise, If they were to answer all the questions singularly they would soon exhaust their right to speak twice during the debate. Moreover, if the rules of debate applied here, after they have answered the first question, they would have to wait until everybody who wishes to speak has had the chance to do so once before taking the floor again to answer another question. My second doubt concerns the possibility for people not present at the Assembly to participate in the debate. In a live assembly, is it possible to let someone who is not present to make a comment or answer a question trough a phone call or a video call? Otherwise, can a member present at the Assembly read a comment/speech on behalf of someone who is not present and specify who they are making the comment on behalf of? I think it would be possible only with the consent of the assembly, but I'm not sure about that. I am sorry for all these questions and I would be grateful if you could answer them. Thank you.