J. J.

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by J. J.

  1. I'm guessing that do not vote at a meeting. Is that correct.
  2. And, it could create an absentee right that could not be suspended. If there was a properly adopted rule preventing nominations from the floor, this could be a problem.
  3. I do believe that rule could be not suspended, and the "election" of someone by write-in votes would be null and void, but I might not consider saying that the person is "ineligible" to be elected. Looking at Mr. Gerber's response, he might not be saying that either. It might be more of a semantic argument. In addition, there might be several different grounds for why write-ins could not be credited. On the second point, yes, this would create a "deadly" combination if there was a rule against nominations from the floor.
  4. In this case, it would mean that the meeting was properly called. If a group of members got together and said, without authority, "We a having this meeting," it would not be a valid meeting. If the bylaws required 30 days notice for a meeting, and only 10 days notice was given, that would not be a valid meeting.
  5. It would depend on how the rule/bylaw was written. I would treat a rule, "That write-in votes shall not be credited," differently than "Only persons nominated shall be eligible to hold the office of ____."
  6. An officer, while speaking, may decline to yield for a question (p. 295, ll. 9-14). Even if the speaker consents to the interruption, "comments that are not questions should be ruled out of order.
  7. I was merely noting that the minutes could be defamatory because a motion this is defamatory may be included in them.
  8. The society could adopt a resolution that was defamatory,and that would be recorded in the minutes.
  9. Well, if everything is in executive session, nobody outside of the society will know. Further, the society cannot establish legal guilt, or innocence. If the member is kicked out, the society can't stop him from talking.
  10. My experience, which has been vicarious, is just the opposite. In cases where there have been public statements, I have also seen suits filed. An assembly cannot determine criminal guilt and may discipline for matters that are not criminal. The rule protects the member by not publicly accusing him of some perceived wrongdoing. The assembly is protected by not engaging in actions that could constitute libel.
  11. You are the president now. How is the vacancy in the position of vice president filled? It could be possible to for you to resign as president, after the new vice president has been seated. That person will then become president. Perhaps you could then fill the vacancy created in the office of vice president.
  12. Disclosing of what information?
  13. Yes, and the Q & A deals with the specific acts of announcing the vote totals, and the recording of those totals in the minutes. It says nothing about removing the ability to count the vote. The Q & A said, " This committee recognizes that there are certain rights associated with voting by a secret, as opposed to a signed, ballot. No motion can be made that force the disclosure of how any member voted (p. 413, ll. 1-4)." I think that answers Dan's first question. To be clear, and to avoid a straw-man argument, the Q & A deal only with the reading of the vote totals by the tellers, the repeating of those vote totals by the chair, and the recording of those vote totals in the minutes. It is implied that was a count.
  14. I'll disagree only slightly and say that it is up to the society to make the determination.
  15. As I said, I do not disagree. That does not change the fact that there is nothing that says proxy voting is prohibited in the bylaws. That is not the same as saying proxy voting is permitted.
  16. I don't disagree. However, no one can point to a section of those bylaws that says, in so many words, that proxy voting is prohibited. Proxy voting cannot be used because RONR specifically states that the bylaws must authorize proxy voting (p. 428, l. 30-35). By adopt RONR in Article VIII, the society agreed to do two things, effectively. First, it agreed to use RONR is cases where in applicable and is "not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order that the Society may adopt (p. 588, ll. 1-8)." In less formal terms, it says that RONR, filled the gaps in the absence of a bylaw or a special rule Second, it agrees to to take certain actions, unless it authorizes those actions in the bylaws; that is indicated in a footnote of p. 16. Proxy voting is an example. Okay, is there anything, in so many words and in the bylaws, that says that the vote totals in an election has must be announced? Not that I can find, or that has been cited. There is in RONR, but not in the bylaws. The assembly has agreed that they will use RONR when they are not inconsistent with the bylaws or with a special rule of order. There is a special rule of order that says, "The vote totals in elections shall not be announced or recorded in the minutes." That does conflict with RONR, but the society says that special rules will supersede any conflicting rules in RONR. With the exception noted in the footnote, RONR says that these special rules will supersede RONR. So, is there anything in the bylaws that says, specifically, that the vote total must be announced? No. While RONR provides that the results of a ballot vote will be announce, the bylaws do not require that. Before we look at what RONR says, we have to look at special rules. The special rule say "The vote totals in elections shall not be announced or recorded in the minutes." However, RONR does say that some certain actions most be authorized in the bylaws. Is there anything in RONR that says, if you want to omit the vote totals in an election, you must put that into the bylaws? No. It could say that, but even under elections of officers section, it doesn't talk about the count being announced at all. And, finally, we have another problem. If there is a plain vanilla motion pending, can a motion be adopted, "that the vote be by ballot, but that the totals not be announced?" While I think that is unusual, it looks in order to adopt according to p. 283, ll. 9-11.
  17. Ann, the question was where, in the sample bylaws, is that express wording. Also note that I specifically exempted a statutory requirement.
  18. If this clause is the bylaws, it would have to be obeyed, despite it being unusual and possibly unworkable. I really that, for this, you should contact a parliamentarian to look at your bylaws.
  19. Perhaps this will help you understand the question. If you were to ask me where, in the same sample bylaws, that it says proxy voting is prohibited, I would say that there is no place in those bylaws that says proxy voting is prohibited. That does not mean that I think proxy voting is, or could be, permitted (unless required by statute). It is simply that the express wording does not exist.
  20. I am speaking of the general case, and I see nothing that would prevent the the assembly from ordering a ballot vote, on a resolution, and from also ordering that the count not be reported. That is not coming close to a ballot vote on an election, but is the general case. Can you point to anything in RONR that indicates that? Now, since you said, "No, not if the bylaws require a ballot vote," can you cite, in the sample bylaw, where it that states, clearly, that when a ballot is taken in the election, the vote totals must be announced? I see nothing in the sample bylaws that says that clearly. I am not saying, at this point, that because there is nothing that it is not the case, but only if the bylaws say, in so many words, that the count is required.
  21. Well, the bylaw says, "The officers shall be elected by ballot to serve for one year or until there successors are elected, and their terms of office shall begin at the close of the annual meeting at which they are elected (p. 585, ll. 25-28)." I see nothing in that bylaw specifically that says, "The vote totals shall be reported." I am not saying that the requirement is in the bylaws, only that it is not specified in the clause that you quote. As to the announcing of vote totals being an "essential element" to a ballot vote, I do not see that occurring in the general case. The society could, as a motion related to methods of voting (p. 283, ll. 9-11), adopt the following motion, "The vote on this resolution shall be by ballot, but the actual vote count shall not be announced." That is consistent with PL, Q & A 195 (pp. 480). I can think of at least one case where it could be desirable.
  22. The information should at least be available to the members of the committee. The committee can order that copies be given to each member of the committee, so I would suggest that copies be made, if they would prefer reading them directly. It would be advisable to collect them afterward, if they are given out. While do not necessarily recommend this, you could number each set, and have the members "sign out" the documents. I will stress that this would be optional and nowhere required in RONR.
  23. Okay, where in that bylaw does it say, "It is required that the vote totals be announced?"
  24. No, that was not the opinion that I had referred to; the opinion, which I cited, was from 2003, not 2013. I said that I thought there was a more recent opinion, that opinion plays no role in anything that I have posted. There is the claim that announcing the vote is an "essential element," of a ballot vote. I have seen nothing that would prevent a special rule from saying, "The vote totals on ballot votes shall not be announced." RONR only requires a ballot vote, on the demand of one member, in one case (p. 668, ll. 1-3) and such a rule would apply. The society may order a ballot, and such a rule would apply in those cases. In fact, we can go back to Parliamentary Law and say that there is no "essential element." In theory, an assembly could, by majority vote, adopt a motion, "that the vote be taken by ballot, but that the vote totals not be announced," in cases where no additional rules requiring a ballot, which is consistent with General Robert's answer in PL. Dan, you said, "As far as the question being discussed in this thread is concerned, the parameter has long been firmly established. Nothing in any special rule of order which conflicts with a provision in the bylaws has any validity." In the sample bylaws, where do you think there is a conflicting bylaw provision?
  25. Well, it stop anyone, ...... in 1923 or their about.