Email motion

[CatsterB]

Our bylaws allow for electronic (email) motions.  To pass must have 100% approval.

The email motion was seconded and received majority but does not receive 100% in favor.  A special meeting is called to "discuss the 'content' of the motion'. 

Is the original email motion still on the table for discussion and vote by (voice) in the conference call or does the motion fail and we start over with a new motion? Second/discuss and vote?

[Tom Coronite]

From what you describe about your bylaws, it sounds as if the motion failed. It did not get the required 100%.

[jstackpo]

Presumably there was a time limit for getting in the votes and, lacking 100%, the motion failed.  If there was no time limit, then you are on your own as RONR has very little to say  --  virtually nothing actually  --  about voting via e-mail.

If the call to the special meeting was as specific as you say, it would not be proper to actually vote on the motion at the meeting.

[Greg Goodwiller, PRP]

21 minutes ago, jstackpo said:

RONR has very little to say  --  virtually nothing actually  --  about voting via e-mail.

Actually, RONR does have a bit to say. It is in the section with the heading "A Vote By Mail," on page 424. the end of the section says, "E-mail and other means of electronic communications can be tailored to comply with these requirements" (RONR pg. 424, ll. 32-33).

The point is, this kind of vote, while it can be valid if so authorized in your bylaws, is not a meeting. Therefore, there simply is not yet any motion that has been duly made in the context of a meeting, and one will have to be offered in order for it to come before the assembly.

[Joshua Katz]

While a failed motion cannot, ordinarily, be made again within the same session, email votes permitted by your emails do not occur during any session.  Therefore, they do not prevent the same motion from being made at an actual meeting.

Whether the same motion may be made at this particular special meeting, though (assuming, of course, that your bylaws allow special meetings) depends on the call of the meeting.  If the call of the meeting simply says "to discuss the 'content' of the motion" then, as far as I can tell, no business whatsoever can be conducted at the special meeting.  If it is worded differently, though, and says that business on the topic will be conducted (in some way), then, I think, the motion is in order.  What exactly does the call say?

[CatsterB]

The main motion was to contract with CDL snow plow co with provision that the any plowing after jan 15 be approved by the board.

The purpose of the meeting" is to select and vote to contract with a snow removal co."

Everyone has agreed on contracting w/CDL as stated in motion-(which makes purpose of mtg as stated actually mute)-  problem is a few disagree with the added provision part of the motion.  So the motion does relate to the purpose.

Would a motion to reconsider- pg 321 apply?  Would chair have duty to reconsider? 

This board only meets quarterly most business is attempted to be done by email which always evolves to a conference call cause no one can agree.

 

[Greg Goodwiller, PRP]

However you want to treat the email vote, your called meeting is a new meeting, and it is in order to make the motion as though it had never been considered before.

[Joshua Katz]

3 hours ago, CatsterB said:

The main motion was to contract with CDL snow plow co with provision that the any plowing after jan 15 be approved by the board.

The purpose of the meeting" is to select and vote to contract with a snow removal co."

Everyone has agreed on contracting w/CDL as stated in motion-(which makes purpose of mtg as stated actually mute)-  problem is a few disagree with the added provision part of the motion.  So the motion does relate to the purpose.

Would a motion to reconsider- pg 321 apply?  Would chair have duty to reconsider? 

This board only meets quarterly most business is attempted to be done by email which always evolves to a conference call cause no one can agree.

 

If this, rather than what was previously described, is the language in the call of the meeting, then, in my opinion, it is in order to consider this motion at the meeting.  It would not, in my opinion, be in order to 'reconsider' for much the same reason that the motion is in order - the email ballot did not, in my view, take place during the same "session" as the electronic meeting (and certainly not on the same or prior day).  I don't think the Jan. 15 provision puts it outside the scope of the call of the meeting, although only your organization can ultimately make that call.

If you cannot get unanimous consent to your email ballots, and end up conducting electronic meetings, my personal advice would be to scrap email voting.  An alternative, of course, is to change the required vote threshold on email votes.  However, my opinion is that synchronous meetings are always better than asynchronous.  (I also prefer in-person over electronic where possible.)

[CatsterB]

5 hours ago, Greg Goodwiller said:

Actually, RONR does have a bit to say. It is in the section with the heading "A Vote By Mail," on page 424. the end of the section says, "E-mail

58 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

If this, rather than what was previously described, is the language in the call of the meeting, then, in my opinion, it is in order to consider this motion at the meeting.  It would not, in my opinion, be in order to 'reconsider' for much the same reason that the motion is in order - the email ballot did not, in my view, take place during the same "session" as the electronic meeting (and certainly not on the same or prior day).  I don't think the Jan. 15 provision puts it outside the scope of the call of the meeting, although only your organization can ultimately make that call.

If you cannot get unanimous consent to your email ballots, and end up conducting electronic meetings, my personal advice would be to scrap email voting.  An alternative, of course, is to change the required vote threshold on email votes.  However, my opinion is that synchronous meetings are always better than asynchronous.  (I also prefer in-person over electronic where possible.)

Thank you.  I too prefer in person meetings.  

It is hard to be recognized by the chair in a conference call.  

Our chair is uninformed re: RONR and its challenging to say the least.

We haved used email to pass motions for convenience between actual mtgs. With 7 board members its alot of emailing back & forth. 

We dont use ballots or a point of contact, the chair replies when she wants usually to someones reply in a email thread.  Its a mess.  We need to set some rules and use a ballot system.   

Thanks again.

 

 

Edited October 20, 2017 at 01:56 AM by CatsterB
Added clarification