Richard Brown

Members
  • Content count

    4,409
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Richard Brown

  • Rank
    Grand Poo-Bah

Profile Information

  • Location
    New Orleans, LA
  • Interests
    Becoming an Exalted Grand Poo-Bah

Recent Profile Visitors

1,798 profile views
  1. Oh, but we do. Quite often , in fact. I would advise JDee to think long and hard before putting such language in the bylaws. As Mr. Mervosh and I have already pointed out, RONR already provides a method for postponing an election when necessary.
  2. Having read the National Parliamentarian Q & A at issue (in volume 78, No. 3) and having followed this thread since Mr. Honemann's first post, I agree with the answer in the National Parliamentarian. My reasoning is essentially the same as that of J.J., Kim Goldsworthy, George Mervosh and Alexis Hunt. I simply do not see the requirement of announcing the vote totals and publishing them in the minutes as being an inseparable part of a ballot vote. Perhaps it should be (although I don't think so) and perhaps the authorship team intends that it be, but I don't think the case has been made that RONR actually says that they are inseparable parts. I think that the ballot vote is one thing and reporting the results (and publishing them in the minutes) are two (or three) separate things and that the manner of reporting the results and of publishing them in the minutes can be established by a special rule of order.
  3. Kim, I see that you are posting questions in this advanced discussion group as well as in the general forum. Your questions should really be posted in the general forum. This forum is really for the use of experienced parliamentarians to discuss complex issues. You have been getting good responses in the general forum. We would appreciate it if you would post your future questions there.
  4. Kim, I agree complete with the previous answers but want to make sure you understand the difference between regular meetings and special meetings, especially regarding notice. Depending on your bylaws, rules and customs, notice may or may not be required for REGULAR meetings of both the executive board and the general membership. However, if notice of meetings is given, ALL members of the group that is to meet are entitled to receive the notice. But, even if notice is given of a regular meeting of either the executive board or the general membership, only notice of the time and place of the meeting need be given. The business to be taken up does not have to be noticed unless you have a rule requiring it. So, it is conceivable that if the officer in question happens to be absent from the executive board meeting at which the recommendation is made and also absent from the general membership meeting at which the actual vote to remove takes place, he (or she) could be removed without his knowledge. However, if either of these actions is to take place at a special meeting rather than a regular meeting, then ALL members of the body that is to meet, including this officer, must be given notice not only of the meeting but also of the business to be taken up. Only the business listed in the call of the meeting can be taken up at a special meeting. It would have to specifically state that it is to consider the removal from office of the officer. You have a customized rule in your bylaws regarding removal from office, so the somewhat more complex procedures in Chapter XX of RONR regarding discipline and removal from office would not apply. Your own rules take precedence.
  5. Elayne, I concur with the answer by the guest above. I'm weighing in simply because that guest, although very knowledgeable, is still posting as a guest and I suspect you would like to know that your advice is coming from someone who is actually a contributing member of the forum. You can see how many posts our members have made and weigh our answers accordingly, but not so with guests who post.
  6. JDee, what Mr. Mervosh is suggesting is exactly what RONR (Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th edition) says to do if for some reason the society desires to "postpone" the elections. A motion to set an "adjourned meeting" is not the same thing as simply adjourning. An "adjourned meeting" is, in essence, the continuation of the same meeting on a future date. I will cite the applicable provision from page 185 of RONR below, as I suspect you do not have a copy of it: "POSTPONEMENT OF A SUBJECT THAT THE BYLAWS SET FOR A PARTICULAR SESSION. A matter that the bylaws require to be attended to at a specified session, such as the election of officers, cannot, in advance and through a main motion, be postponed to another session. It can be taken up at any time when it is in order during the specified session (that is, either as originally convened or at any adjournment of it); and it can be postponed to an adjourned meeting in the manner explained above, after first adopting, if necessary, a motion to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn. The adjourned meeting, as already stated, is a continuation of the same session. The procedure of postponing such a matter to an adjourned meeting is sometimes advisable, as in an annual meeting for the election of officers on a stormy night when, although a quorum is present, the attendance is abnormally small. If the matter has actually been taken up during the specified session as required, it also may be postponed beyond that session in accordance with the regular rules for the motion to Postpone. It is usually unwise to do so, however, unless completing it during the session proves impossible or impractical." As stated in the last paragraph of the quote above, you do have another option besides setting an adjourned meeting. You can simply postpone the elections to the next regular meeting (or to a special meeting), but if you are going to follow RONR, you must first actually take up the elections at the specified meeting and then have a member make a motion to postpone the completion of the elections until the next meeting. To first take up the elections at the meeting specified in the bylaws, the chair simply announces that "the election of officers is now the next order of business" or "The election of officers is now before the assembly". At that time, the elections are then before the assembly and any member can move to postpone the elections to the next meeting (provided it is within a quarterly time interval). The motion to postpone the elections cannot technically made until the elections are actually pending, that is, when the election is actually the item of business before the assembly. It cannot be moved before you get to that point in your order of business. It's the rule because your bylaws say the elections MUST be taken up at that particular meeting. So, you must take them up. You just don't have to complete them at that time. Understand now? Maybe?
  7. JDee, do you have a copy of RONR? Any other books on parliamentary procedure?
  8. JDee, I don't think you understand what Mr. Mervosh is trying to tell you. When I can get on a computer in a few minutes I will try to explain further.
  9. JDee, I'm having a hard time understanding exactly what you are asking. Can you try to clarify for us exactly what it is you or your organization want to do?
  10. Based on the well written information provided by guest Randall, I agree with the comments immediately above by Mr. Katz and Mr. Honemann. I believe that if 160 members are present, the affirmative vote of 81 members would be required to select a provider. Edited to add: upon further reflection, I'm not sure that I agree completely with either Mr. Katz or Mr. Honemann, but I do agree (or at least take the position) that if 160 members are present, the affirmative votes of 81members would be required to adopt any motion or to select a provider. I'm not so sure that voting must continue until a provider is selected. This appears to me more like a motion to fill in a blank with the choice being between company A and Company B. It might well be that the membership does not want either company or does not want a new provider at all. I don't agree that they MUST choose a company (although there could be consequences such as the termination of telephone service or cable television service if they don't choose one by a certain deadline).
  11. Well, the meeting SHOULD have minutes. You want to make a bet on whether it actually does?
  12. I can't speak for SaintCad, but I was thinking along the lines of a member moving to amend the agenda at the beginning of the meeting to add an agenda item for nominations from the floor immediately prior to the election. If the chair rules the motion out of order (or in order), it could be appealed and settled at that point, early in the meeting. That way the members would have at least some amount of notice that floor nominations will be permitted. An equally acceptable (or perhaps more appropriate) time would be when someone tries to make an actual nomination from the floor as Josh suggested.
  13. And I agree that the adoption of the agenda would be a good time to bring it up. Not the only possible time, but a good time early in the meeting.
  14. I am going to disagree with most (or maybe all) of my colleagues who have posted in this thread. I think this is a matter of bylaws interpretation as to whether the only method of being nominated for office is to be nominated by the Board Development Committee (not a nominating committee as such). Here is the wording of the relevant bylaw provision according to the original poster: (Emphasis added and portions of original post omitted): It seems to me that the highlighted bylaw provision could well be construed as a qualification for office, i.e., being nominated by the Board Development Committee (not the nominating committee). We are all well aware that bylaws often can and do provide an exclusive method of being nominated for office. I believe this is one of those instances.... or that it certainly creates a question of bylaws interpretation as to whether the bylaws intend that being nominated by that particular committee constitutes the only method of being nominated. If so, that provision certainly trumps the provisions in RONR about taking nominations from the floor. The quoted provision says that candidates "SHALL be nominated by the Board Development Committee. That is quite different from saying, for example, that a "nominating committee shall nominate at least one candidate for each position", etc. Such wording does not foreclose other nominations, such as from the floor. In this case, per the bylaws, the ONLY way to be nominated is to be nominated by the Board Development Committee. I don't think that those of us contributing on this forum can say with certainty that this organization MUST accept nominations from the floor based on the unque bylaw provision. I think it is up to this society to interpret its own bylaws on this issue. That can be done first by a ruling of the chair and then an appeal of his ruling.