ranitamia

Context first: I was in the audience of a membership meeting where the chair was leading. There was a separate person assigned as a Parliamentarian. During new business, a member asked to be recognized to make a motion. He was called upon by the chair to go ahead. At this time, he had a team of his staff (non members) pass around handouts to the audience. The multiple page document contained his concerns (it read like an op-Ed) followed by a concluding written question to the board. At the end of the document was two motions which were substantiated by the previous pages of commentary. The person read all 10 pages of his document which took about 30 minutes. He finally got to his motion that passed. My question is, when one makes a motion, how much time are they allotted to support or describe said motion? Should this person have been allowed to read all 10 pages from the floor without interruption from the chair? Granted, there are no time limit stipulations in the bylaws; however, the meeting ran well overtime and neither the parliamentarian or chair disallowed the conduct.

Thank you for this information. I appreciate your time in answering.

I am a volunteer for a membership organization serving as Chair. The executive committee (volunteer board of membership organization) is discussing making a modification to the bylaws. I am trying to understand what this process looks like in light of this snapshot from our bylaws: "Amendments to the Bylaws shall be by action of the Executive Committee, subject to ratification at the next annual membership meeting." This is what I understand the process to look like: 1) Discussion at next Executive Committee meeting where group agrees with bylaw change 2) Executive Committee member makes a motion, second. 3) Fast forward to membership meeting in March.....quorum is identified. Chair puts the "motion" (?) to the membership and asks for a vote. (How do I word this for the membership? Is this a motion, resolution, recommendation? Do I need a member to make a motion, second, debate then vote? I certainly enjoy volunteering but this is confusing me! Please help and THANK YOU for your time.

Mr Mervosh, thank you so much for the quick response. Regarding the write-in....must this occur despite the fact that the bylaws state that you can get your name on the ballot by nominating committee or petition? Does the absence of stating "no nominations from the floor, write in, by proxy, etc" mean that we must allow for it? If yes, what would be the purpose of the petition process if someone could simply write in another name? My apologies for my ignorance. Thank you in advance.

I am a volunteer that serves as chair on a board. I am not extremely well versed in RROO. I am seeking guidance from this group of experts. If you can kindly source your response, that would be helpful so I can reference and research more later. My question: My nominating committee has nominated one person to fill one seat on our board. The person nominated is an appointee who now must stand for election since the position he was appointed to fill has expired. The deadline to receive nominations by petition has expired with no one coming forward. In summary, this is an uncontested election. I am being told that "there needs to be a ballot, otherwise there is no election…and board members need to be elected." I understand that if the bylaws say there must be an election, then there must be one. Here is my problem: Our bylaws do not say "there MUST be a ballot and an election" but our bylaws do NOT say either that "you can dispense with balloting in uncontested elections." In reading through the bylaws, there is a section that is entitled "Nominations and Elections" and includes this: "The Nominating Committee will determine the final ballot..." "In the event an interested member is not nominated, his/her name can be listed on the ballot by submitting a petition containing...." Article VIII - The Election Process 1. Ballots will list candidates in an order determined by the drawing of lots and will contain the candidate’s campaign statement. All incumbents will be clearly identified. Ballots will ask for the member's name. No other campaign collateral material is allowed during the elections process. Candidates in violation are subject to disqualification. 2. Completed ballots that have the names of more than the maximum number of open seats will be disqualified. 3. XYZ will receive and validate all ballots. Results will be shared with the Nominating and Executive Committees. In the event of a tie, the vote will be determined by a vote of the XYZ's current Executive Committee members, excluding those that are on the ballot. The above is an excerpt to show that I am not seeing anything that says "you must have a ballot"...it only references how ballots are used and who curates results. I say we can declare the person voted in by acclamation. I am being told this is not the case. I will work to revise the bylaws to add the statement about dispensing with balloting in uncontested elections, but for now, should I just yield to what I am being told in that we MUST send a ballot to formalize the election? It will most certainly look strange to members who receive a ballot with only one name and one position - why waste the time? BUT....I'd rather be safe than sorry. Your help is much appreciated.