Search the Community

Hello, I am a staff member for a municipal corporation supporting a citizen's advisory board. A question has arisen as to the proper procedure for nominating and voting to select the chair of an advisory board for the year. After nominations were made, each nominee gave a nominating speech. Two speeches were very short (two or there sentences), and one was longer. After each nominee spoke, another member, who has served as Chair in the past made a philosophical comment on the purpose and function of the board as an advisory committee. His comment was not specifically directed at the nominee who made the longer speech, but could be interpreted to take some exception to some of the ideas the nominee expressed. Next the vote was taken and the results announced. After the meeting, the nominee who gave the longer nominating speech, who was not elected, complained to staff that there should not have been allowed any deliberative or other comments made after nominations were complete and that immediately after nominations, the vote should have occurred without any comment or deliberation of the members. It seems to me that elections are sort of a special case of the standard progression of motion, deliberation and voting and that comments or deliberations by the members after nominations and before election voting by the members is appropriate. Are comments, deliberations, or recommendations by the members allowed after nominations are complete before voting occurs for electing a Chair? Thank you.

Greetings! Can anyone point me to the specific pages in RROO, 11th Edition, where it states that 'silence means consent' and how the vote should be recorded properly? My research online reveals that when a member remains silent, they are consenting. Those who do not vote allow the decision to be made by those who do vote. I have a board member who says RROO states silence means abstention and I can't find that in the book either. Any help is appreciated! Thank you!

One of our members is on a three-week-long official leave of absence. During that time, we are having elections for new members and our executive officers slate. Does a member on leave have the right to vote? She will be calling into the meeting to attend via speakerphone, which our bylaws permit, but is she considered an active member during that meeting and/or considered part of the quorum? If we are voting by ballot only, which our bylaws require, is she allowed to send in a ballot and thus vote, without actually appearing at the meeting? She is not permitted to vote by proxy but would have an actual ballot delivered. I’m having trouble finding the answer to this in ROR that I can cite. Thank you.

I am the Chair of the governing board of a not-for-profit body established by statute to regulate the practice of a profession in our jurisdiction. From time to time, we may be asked to appoint representatives of either our board or of the organization to outside entities, often at a governance level. In addition, we establish governance committees of the board on a regulator basis, both standing committees with term limits, and special or ad hoc committees. When we are required to make these and similar appointments, we often solicit volunteers or nominations for the post(s) in questions, and then hold a vote, frequently by secret ballot. Once all the ballots are submitted and counted, a "winner" is declared. Then we hold a second vote, on a Motion to appoint so-and-so to the post in question. In my view, that second Motion is redundant, and the balloting process should suffice to make the appointment, unless there is some irregularity. In addition, when there is only one candidate for a post, we do not declare that individual elected by acclamation, but again require a Motion to appoint the individual. That also seems to me to be redundant. This process seems simply an extra step that takes little time when it occurs at a face-to-face meeting, but it introduces extra delay when it involves teleconference meetings and electronic vote in question that come up between face-to-face meetings, which are permitted both by our enabling legislation and our Bylaws. For example, a ballot is sent out for an electronic vote to make an appointment which has a deadline before our next face-to-face meeting, usually for legislated reasons beyond our control. Once all the ballots are in by the voting deadline, we then hold a second electronic vote to affirm the appointment of the individual who gained the plurality of the votes on the ballot. Do we need that second vote? Thank you.

I recently joined a new volunteer fire department. I have been a member less than a year. I used to be in abother department for 13 years. We have some well detailed but somewhat cumbersome rules. However it appears as our by laws were violated about 6 months ago but nobody raised a point of order at the time. I am wondering if it is too late to do so. We have two types of officers, executive and operational. The executive side runs the organization and the operational side commands at emergencies. There are various requirements for operational officers that increase with rank. It is the job of the executive officers to determine that all nominees for operational office are qualified. In May a member was nominated for lieutenant, the executive board made no objection to the nomination. In June when the elections were about to be held the executive board was asked about qualifications for a different nominee for a different lieutenant position. Their reply was that they had not met with the Chief to get the information they needed and thus they had no way of telling who was or was not qualified. Both of those two nominees were running unopposed so the presiding officer said that there was no point in delaying their election. Both of those nominees were elected, by the secretary casting one ballot. An objection was raised from the floor about another candidate for lieutenant not having one qualification. He was questioned abut this by the presiding officer and it was determined that he could not be nominated for that position. Now it turns out that the first member I wrote about also lacked a qualification for office, although a different one. It also looks like several members and officers on both the executive and operational sides knew about this issue. I was not a voting member at the time so I could not bring it up. Is it too late to bring up this problem, next month which will be 6 months into a 1 year term? I have asked some other members but everyone seems to think that if the membership voted than the election has to stand even though the member was never qualified to run in the first place.

The term "majority of a quorum" baffles me. It seems (1) redundant and (2) ambiguous. Redundant because a vote cannot be taken without a quorum present so why specify "majority of a quorum?" Ambiguous because it would seem to be subject to interpretation. Suppose an organization has 24 member and the bylaws state that 25% of the membership constitutes a quorum. Then 6 members would make up a quorum and 4 would be a majority of a quorum. Then suppose 20 members are present for the vote. A majority of those present would now be 11. Now 16 people vote in favor of the motion and 4 oppose. A majority of a quorum opposed. Does the motion fail? That's silly, of course, but in a world where millions of dollars can rest on the presence or absence of an "Oxford comma," it seems strange to use an ambiguous and redundant phrase. Any comments?

Is it proper to take a vote on something the members have not had the time to read?

my union took a vote to approve a new contract. Now members want to re vote claiming they misunderstood. Is that legitimated?

My organization has had a years-long tradition in which someone calls "Acclamation" when it came time to vote. The chair then says, "Acclamation has been called; is there any dissent?" Seeing none, the motion is approved by consensus. If there is dissent, then the chair moves to a form of countable voting. I have searched various sources for this "rule," and I cannot find one. Can someone please answer the following: 1. Is calling "Acclamation" an actual allowable rule? I am familiar with the chair using the phrase "If there is no objection..." as a way to approve some motions by consensus, but I cannot find this particular phrase. 2. Members of my organization have taken to voting by consensus for everything, including main motions (beyond simply procedural actions such as approving the minutes and adjourning the meeting) and amendments. I am trying to convey to them that an actual voice or counted vote needs to occur. Can someone point me to sections of RR that I can use as a referral? Thanks in advance for any help you can give!

In regards to a three member board. One member discloses a conflict of interest, but lets the public know that per the State Ethics Commission he can vote to break a tie, because of the size of the board. If the chairman makes the motion, can the person with the conflict of interest second that motion? I understand that he can "vote" to break a tie, but the second has to come before the vote.

When there is a vote on officers by secret ballot and one position results in a tie vote but the other offices are decided, what procedure should be followed for breaking the tie vote? Does the unit vote only on the office that is tied? Vote on the entire slate again?

I am a Board member, had to leave one Board meeting early due to family member being ill and had to miss the subsequent Board meeting. At these 2 Board meetings, 2 major issues were voted on and the minutes of these 2 meetings show Board members as voting "unanimously" in favor of these issues. While the minutes for 1st meeting show I had to leave early and the minutes for the 2nd meeting show me as "absent", our Annual Members Meeting is scheduled to take place in the next 5 few days. Since, as a Board member, I am strongly opposed to these 2 issues as I do not think they are in the best interests of the membership, my question is: Question: Is there a way, within Roberts Rules of Order, that I can early on in the Annual Members meeting, somehow publicly note "for the record" that, had I been able to be present for votes on these issues I would have voted against them? How can I let the membership know that I opposed these 2 issues since, for the past 2 years I have opposed them, the community has relied on my leadership on these 2 issues and have, at Annual Members Meetings, agreed with my opposition. Therefore, I would not want membership to think I have suddenly changed my position on these 2 significant issues which stand to be more detrimental than beneficial to the membership. While I always respect majority vote, the membership thinking that I am now in agreement with 2 actions I have always strongly opposed in order to protect members' rights, may influence members to vote in favor of these issues. However, if they understand that, had I been able to vote on these 2 actions, I would have voted "no" and opposed them, members will clearly recall the rationales for my ongoing opposition over the past 2 years, for the good of all members. Thank you for any information or guidance you can provide.

Some of our church bylaws, such as to adopt an amendment to a bylaw, require a vote by those "present and voting." When voting on other motions (such as amending the amendment, waiving some standing rules, referring to the committee, or adjourning) is voting just by those present (unless specifically mentioned in the bylaws)?

Does Roberts Rules Of Order speak to whether or not business can be re-visited after the close of business, outside of and before another meeting? I belong to an organization whose parliamentarian authority states in writing, that Robert's Rules of Order governs meetings in matters not covered by our organization's rules. Our organization's rules state in writing that a proposed amendment is adopted if it has been approved by 2/3 vote of those voting. Following a recent meeting, a controversy arose. During said meeting, our parliamentarian, after a vote, mistakenly announced that the just-voted on proposed amendment was approved. In reality, the proposed amendment failed because it did not receive 2/3 vote of those voting. When the parliamentarian was told one day after, about her error made during prior day's meeting, she ruled in the organization member appeal, that Roberts Rules of Order governed in this case: She stated that since the parliamentarian announcement error was not caught before the close of business during the meeting, the mistake could not be re-visited, or corrected, according to Roberts Rules of Order. She declared, therefore that the proposed said amendment must stand as adopted, despite its actual failure to receive 2/3 votes required to approve it as adopted. Has Roberts Rules of Order been used correctly in this situation? Would you please site the page and reference either way, supporting yes or no. Thank you. Lastly, our organization rules do not address in writing, whether parliamentarian mistakes made during a meeting can corrected outside of a business meeting.

An electronic meeting was completed with a quorum in attendance. An issue was sent back to committee for wordsmithing of one section. How can the issue now be voted on? Only those in attendance and the outcome by majority or does the full board vote even those not in attendance? Lengthy discussion was completed on the call.

My country club bylaws state they follow Roberts' Rules. We are electing 4 new directors August, 20th and the bylaws require two candidates for each vacancy, with the top 4 vote getters being elected. Bylaws further require ballots be sent to around 285 members at least 30 days prior to the annual meeting and election. Ballots were mailed on time, but one of the candidates names was accidentally omitted from the ballot--so we have 7 names, not the 8 the bylaws require. How should this debacle be handled? Write in votes are not allowed and voters must vote for 4 candidates or their ballot is disqualified. Moving the annual meeting is not an option. Could the board mail out corrected ballots with all 8 names and call a special meeting that meets the 30 day requirement to count the votes and elect the new board members? cdavant@charter.net

In a committe of three voting members,. can an alternate member make a motion if one of the voting embers leaves the room for a short time period say for 5 minutes. Our policy says in the absence of a voting member the alternate member has voting rights.

We are a 501(c)3 philanthropic organization. Our Bylaws state that the membership is required to be notified 20 days in advance of any meetings, financial voting, etc. The membership was notified 20 days in advance that they would be voting on the upcoming fiscal year budget. However, the budget was not attached for review. Just the notification that they were voting on it. The budget was sent to the membership approximately 6 hours prior to the meeting. The discussion is whether or not the motion to approve the budget was legitimate if the membership did not have the opportunity to review prior to voting. Insight?

It may be obvious but I’m looking for something to support challenging the following. Our Association will hold the Annual Homeowners Meeting very soon. A current Board member is up for re-election at this meeting. However, this same Board member has been going to homeowners to solicit their Proxy forms. These Proxies will be given to the Association Secretary and she will cast votes for this Board member to be re-elected. To complicate this further, there is someone else who will be running however, the individuals who have already gave their Proxy don’t know this. I’m looking for recommendations on how to challenge this inappropriate activity.

Hello, In an organization I'm in, the following irregularities occurred while voting on an elected position in a small meeting. 1. A candidate, like others, had left the room while discussion was taking place. When he returned, he was notified of the result of the discussion. The candidate, apparently under the impression that the result was final and that voting did not yet take place, asked why the result was as such, as he was not preferred. Despite the chair of the meeting announcing that voting is to take place, and after a short discussion, he made a short pitch on how he qualifies for that position while people were filling their ballot. 2. While voting was taking place, a member raised an objection that what happened is irregular and gave the candidate an unfair advantage over others. The objection was not taken into account and voting proceeded normally. 3. After the result came out, the candidate who made the pitch won. The member who had raised the objection notified the organization by email that what happened is highly irregular and unfair, after which a few members admitted to have felt pressured inside the meeting into voting for the candidate in question due to his presence and actions. In this case, and in case the organization's bylaws do not specify how you can challenge elections results, what is to be done according to ROR? Is voting repeated or other measures taken, or are members considered responsible for their choices (including the chair who did not take the objection into account)? I personally view the elections to be illegitimate due to the pitch that happened during voting, but I am wary that other members may have not liked the outcome of the election and are using this fact to repeat the voting and change the outcome, and thus setting a bad precedent. Any input is appreciated.

There are some actions which, upon a timely Point of Order, will turn: (a.) an adopted motion; into (b.) a null-and-void motion. *** There are at least three kinds of behavior which will trigger the above change: (1.) Previous notice was insufficient. -- A member(s) was/were not mailed the notice. (2.) A member(s) was/were not allowed to attend a meeting. (3.) A member(s) was/were not allowed to vote at a meeting. *** Of the above listed behaviors, there is a circumstance where (a.) the adopted motion will stand. (b.) the adopted motion will be rendered null and void. *** Given a timely Point of Order: Q. Which of the behaviors have a circumstance where the adopted motion will stand? Q. Which of the behaviors will always render an adopted motion as null and void? *** The reader may wish to review some key pages in RONR: (1.) page 252, "Remedy for violation of the right to vote". (2.) page 445, the paragraph which begins, "Otherwise, an election may be contested by . . ." and its bullet items. ***

On page 45, it is explained the chair must always call for the negative vote, no matter how nearly unanimous the affirmative vote may appear. However, later it says that "a further exception arises when the negative vote is intrinsically, irrelevant, as for example, when "a vote of one fifth of those present"". Don't these two statements contradict each other. What would constitute intrinsically irrelevant? And doesn't the first statement establish that the negative vote should be called no matter how clear a margin of victory?

I am a member of a college senate, which meets on the first Monday of each month during the academic year. At our March meeting, a member was absent and did not send a proxy on a specific motion, which failed for the lack of one vote, as announced. The April meeting was held and this motion was not renewed. The member has now located the "late vote with the permission of the assembly" language in ROR 4th (quoted below and referred to on our website), and wants to know if she can ask the May meeting for unanimous consent to cast her vote, which would be in favor of the motion, thereby changing the outcome of the March meeting vote. The specific language she quotes is: "A member has the right to change his vote up to the time the vote is finally announced. After that, he can make the change only by permission of the assembly, which may be given by general consent; that is, by no member's objecting when the chair inquires if any one objects. If objection is made, a motion may be made to grant the permission, which motion is undebatable." I am trying to line up the specific issues I see with this request, and your input would be appreciated. 1) An absent member does not cast a vote, and therefore cannot be said to "change his vote," therefore this section would not apply at all. 2) The adjournment of a regularly scheduled monthly meeting concludes all business acted upon at the session, so the March motion was completed at that time (is there a better way of phrasing this?) and cannot be reopened for a late vote at a later session. Any other issues that I should bring up? There is a reluctance in practice in our assembly to put an identical motion back on a subsequent agenda and simply revote without any change in the wording of the motion or its underlying facts, simply because people did not like the outcome, although this is not stated in our bylaws. As I understand it, as our assembly meetings are regularly scheduled, each monthly meeting is its own session. As a practical matter, therefore, I did not see anything in the rules that would prevent the identical motion being moved at a later session. My tentative suggestion therefore would be to ask her to ask the same motion at the May meeting and vote again. Would you suggest different advice?

So tonight we are voting on a bylaw change that was sent to the voting body last week. When the meeting starts do we need a motion to vote or can we simply go right into the vote? I envision it being like this: "There is a proposal to (insert proposed bylaw), we will open the floor for discussion" "Seeing no more discussion (or seeing none), I will entertain a motion to vote" Motioned and seconded "all those in favor, please raise your hand" "all those opposed" "announce outcome" Is this right?

My HOA sent out a vote to change the convenants. 75% of voters is needed to pass. A deadline of Oct 20,2016 was set to have the vote completed. Five months later we are informed that they are still trying to get people to return their ballots. Can you extend the vote 5 months until you get the result you want? What would Roberts Rules do?