All Activity

This stream auto-updates   

  1. Past hour
  2. Yeah, that'll nail it down.
  3. Today
  4. It remains valid. Motions do not expire. If the assembly no longer wishes for the motion to carry out, the motion should be rescinded.
  5. J. J. is no lady. :-)
  6. Lady and Gentlemen, I have had valuable advice from all of you. I think that this particular hare has run its course and it is time to close discussion so that you can help others elsewhere. Thank you all very much.
  7. Being a town meeting, is there a pertainent law? Also any special rule or bylaw about this?
  8. Lord, please let him be a member! I don't know if I can handle three mistakes in one post!
  9. Then I guess the question is: what is the status of an motion that invokes a deadline for its implementation if the action is never carried out. Does the motion "expire"?
  10. Is the moderator a member of the body that was meeting?
  11. Ah, you are correct on both points! For some reason, I thought the chair had declared that the motion failed. He did indeed announce that it passed... so as far as RONR is concened, it was adopted notwithstanding the fact that the chair should have voted with everyone else in a ballot vote. Thanks for finding the reference on page 414. I thought it was in the book somewhere, but wasn't able to find it. So, in conclusion, my opinion is still that the chair's pronouncement that the motion was adopted still stands, notwithstanding the fact that he shouldl not have been allowed to cast his vote after the others had voted without the permission of the assembly. I believe that a violation of that rule would require a timely point of order at the time of the breach as I stated in my first post. Note: I am assuming that the moderator (the chair) did announce that the motion passed. If he did not, then that presents a new problem. Thanks, Hieu, for catching my two mistakes!
  12. Wouldn't the chair have announced that the motion was adopted if he voted in favor of it? What about RONR 11th ed., p. 414, ll. 25-28?
  13. thank you...I appreciate the information
  14. If RONR has been adopted as your parliamentary authority, you do not need any special language about removing from office. As Mr. Huynh pointed out with his reference to FAQ No. 20, if your bylaws provide that officers serve for "X years or until their successors are elected", an officer can be removed from office with or without cause. In addition, the chapter on discipline (Chapter XX), provides a method of removing officers for cause.
  15. Well, regardless of whether the chair should have voted after the others voted, what is done is done. Apparently, the chair announced that the motion had failed. Without a timely point of order, the pronouncement of the chair stands. Someone would have to make a point of order at the time of the chair's vote in order to reverse his ruling/announcement of the vote results. Should he have voted after the others voted when the vote was a ballot vote? According to RONR, no, he should not have. But, the statement in RONR isn't quite as explicit as it could be. Here is the applicable language from page 53 of the 11th edition of RONR. I bolded the key language: "Chair's Vote As Part of the Announcement, Where It Affects the Result. If the presiding officer is a member of the assembly or voting body, he has the same voting right as any other member. Except in a small board or a committee, however—unless the vote is secret (that is, unless it is by ballot; 45)—the chair protects his impartial position by exercising his voting right only when his vote would affect the outcome, in which case he can either vote and thereby change the result, or he can abstain. If he abstains, he simply announces the result with no mention of his own vote." As I said in the first paragraph, however, the issue is moot as nobody raised a point of order when the chair voted. However, unless you have some customized rule that prohibits it, a new motion to purchase the property can be made at the next meeting or some other future meeting. Edited to add: As Mr. Huynh correctly points out below, the chair apparently announced that the motion had passed, not that it had failed. And Mr. Huynh found the statement in RONR that when the vote is by ballot, the chair must vote with everyone else unless he receives the permission of the assembly to cast his vote after the others.
  16. FAQ #20 may be of use.
  17. can anyone give me a sample of how the by laws (or constitution) should read if we were to add a section about removing officers. Our officers are elected ....we want to add something so we could remove an officer that is not performing their duties This is what our by-laws say now: The elective officers of this Federation shall be a president, a first and second vice-president and a treasurer, all of whom shall be elected by ballot, unless there is but a single nomination for each office, at the annual meeting of the Federation, and shall serve for one year. Each officer may be re-elected once except for the treasurer who may be re-elected as often as feasible. Any help in this matter would be appreciated greatly
  18. Our town had a special town meeting to discuss and vote on the town purchasing a property. We did a ballot vote and ended up in a tie. The moderator did NOT vote. Once the ballot clerks told him it was a tie, he announced it to the people and then said the moderator casts his vote to break the tie. He voted in favor of the purchase. Now a few people are saying that that is not legal/proper way and that the vote should be cancelled because it was a tie and that the moderator can't break it because it was a ballot vote. We are trying to find some clarity on this. Thank you!
  19. Agreeing with Hieu, the maker of a motion may vote against the motion, but he cannot speak against it in debate .
  20. No.
  21. Does the person who makes a motion , which is seconded, have to vote in favor of the motion?
  22. The adopted motion is in effect. The assembly could amend something previously adopted if it hasn't been executed. Or it could discipline the chair for not executing the motion.
  23. Ambiguous. Do you mean a "majority vote of the entire board" or the "vote of the majority of the entire board"? There is a difference, or at least can be. The first is ambiguous. The second is not...and is the suggested wording in RONR if it is meant that a majority of ALL board members must vote yes.
  24. Yesterday
  25. Still ambiguous, but I agree that "not including..." is a good addition. When you write "a majority vote of the entire Board" do you mean a "majority vote" in the standard sense of more than half the members actually voting? Abstentions don't count one way or another. or do you mean a vote of the majority of the board, i.e. more than half of the total number of board members (a number) have to vote "Yes". Abstentions are in effect a "no" vote because they don't contribute to the sum of the "Yes" votes.
  26. You might also want to look at p. 16, especially the footnote.
  27. Two points here: 1) This would be in a By-law - that over rules anything found in RONR. 2) Okay, it could state "a majority vote of the entire Board, not including the member in question." How is that?
  28. I think you are reading more into what is on pages 434 and 444 than is actually there. Forget about a nominating committee for a minute. Assume the organization does like quite a few organizations do and takes nominations from the floor at the meeting prior to the election meeting. They customarily have ballots printed based on the names nominated at the previous meeting and, if there was a nominating committee, the names submitted by the nominating committee. RONR seems to say that a candidate nominated by the nominating committee can withdraw, but it is silent as to those nominated from the floor. Responses to previous threads in this forum about this issue, as I recall, seem to generally take the position that a nomination cannot be "declined" and that a member cannot have his name removed from nomination unless a special rule provides for it. Those posts take the position that once nominated, a member is nominated. He can refuse to serve if elected, but he is still nominated. Perhaps some organizations will oblige and remove a name from the ballot (or from nomination), but I'm not at all sure RONR provides for it. Even so, the member could still be elected by means of write in votes. Therefore, I'm not at all convinced that names can be "removed from the ballot" once nominated unless some special rule (or perhaps a motion) provides for it.
  1. Load more activity