All Activity

Well, as an example, in many organizations the president is elected by the body, and by virtue of being president is on the board. So the president is an ex officio member of the board. In other instances, directors are elected, and then the board selects its president from among its members.

That's a great question. My understanding is the ex officio means by virtue of their position. For example, some elected officials in county government are ex officio members of the Executive Committee. They never sit for an election at the county convention, and they (were previously) automatically members of the Executive Committee. They now must be elected at either the convention or an Executive Committee meeting. Since they have to elected at one or the other, are they still ex officio? If so, then I agree with your comment.

There is no vote on approving last meeting's minutes, and so no motion or second is required. The chair calls for the reading of the minutes and asks if there are any corrections to the draft. If there are no corrections (or once there are no further corrections), the Chair simply announces that the minutes stand approved as read (or as corrected.) And by the way, it is not proper to let the minutes of an annual meeting go unapproved for an entire year. The assembly should move to appoint the board or a special committee to approve the minutes.

That's entirely a matter of what your bylaws say regarding the powers of the executive committee.

The president would be correct to say that the item passed with a 2-1 vote. Votes are either Yes or No. There is no third category of vote. Abstaining means not to vote.

Okay, so the three comes from there being 4 members present. Thanks for clarifying. This is still a misunderstanding, though.

There has been an understanding in our student group that “simple majority” is half plus one of whatever the number of voting members present is needed to pass, or enacted items brought to a vote. With this understanding, there is always a said number that needs met for an item to pass/enacted. Which is the case I presented above.

If you adopt the agenda that way, that will be the order.

I agree with Mr. Novosielski . It does not change anything.

We will be using an agenda. I am preparing it now and want to place unfinished business after the minutes but before we have officers' reports.

Yes, I agree with J.J. that each intervening item of business can be laid on the table when it is called up. The advantage is that each intervening item of business can be temporarily disposed of by a majority vote; the disadvantage is that the process may be inconvenient and time-consuming if there are quite a number of intervening items of business .

No. That's the same thing.

This is just a cumbersome restatement of the rules already in RONR regarding a majority vote. Under such a rule all that is required for adoption of a motion is that the Yes votes outnumber the No votes (which is clearly not true in the case of a tie vote). The only exception is that this rule requires abstentions to be recorded. Presumably this only applies to recorded votes (i.e., roll-call votes) where each member's vote is recorded. There is no way to determine with certainty who abstained on a voice vote, for instance, even if abstentions are called for—presumably: Those in favor say Aye; those opposed say No; those abstaining remain silent.) Abstentions should be recorded as Abstain or Present, not as Yes or No votes. The language does not support changing an abstention to a Yes (or No). It only says that the person is "deemed" to "acquiesce" with the outcome, i.e. to be considered to assent with the outcome without protest.

Does this change the scenario? Another by law states- The Board may adopt, amend, or repeal rules of order for its own operation by simple resolution of the Board passed by a majority of those present and voting.

If the assembly has an established order of business, the adoption of a non-conforming agenda requires a two-thirds vote, since the adoption of the main motion has the effect of suspending the rules. RONR (12th ed.) 10:8(7)(b).

It would also lay each intervening item of business on the table when pending.

If you are using an agenda, you may arrange it in any order you so desire. You aren’t required to follow the standard order of business. Once an agenda is adopted, if you are using one, you may still suspend the rules to take an item out of order.

The proper motion to take up an item of business ahead of its assigned place in the established order of business is the incidental motion, Suspend the Rules: "Mr. President, I move to suspend the rules that interfere with the immediate consideration of [...]." This motion is not debatable and requires a two-thirds vote for adoption. See RONR (12th ed.) §25.

Guest Robert, you have a Strange by law provision, and it is ultimately up to your organization to interpret it. We cannot interpret your bylaws for you. I agree. The abstention does not count and should be ignored. I do not think that the vote should be recorded as a 4 to 2 vote. In my opinion, it is still a 3 to 2 vote. The bylaw provision at issue does not say that abstension shall be counted as a vote with the majority, but rather that the person who abstains shall be deemed to acquiesce with the majority. That is indeed the effect of an abstention in RONR. I do not believe the quoted bylaw provision changes that. So, I would still record the vote as a 3 to 2 vote.

Even something in a "single room or area" may not be a deliberative assembly, by this definition. A second question is if a meeting of a society whose members are deaf could never be a deliberative assembly?

Can unfinished business be placed at the top of the agenda if another item cannot be reported on without its disposition?

It passes, because 3 is greater than 2, making it a majority. I guess this means that this vote should be recorded as 4-2, although I have no idea what is accomplished by this. This would be the case without this bylaw, too. In short, the bylaw you cite only operates if there is a majority to attach it to. And all it does is widen that majority.

I do not disagree. The test is whether or not the assembly is meeting under "conditions of opportunity for simultaneous aural communication among all participants" as would exist if it were meeting "in a single room or area". All that is needed is an honest answer to the question as to whether or not such conditions exist.

Scenario- A seven member board. Six members are present. A vote is taken: 3 members vote yes 2 members vote no 1 member abstains The bylaw on voting reads- Any Board member's decision to abstain shall be recorded and be deemed to acquiesce in the action taken by the majority. In situations in which there is a tie vote and the abstention represents the deciding vote, the motion shall fail for lack of a majority. does the motion pass or fail?

The key words are "subordinate board of average size." That is certainly not the case in all assemblies. I would not claim that, in a large body, the case where a member may not be heard by all (unless recognized) would change that characteristic of a deliberative assembly.