Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. The current member need not resign to run for another seat staggered the way you describe. If your member wins, he effectively has resigned his current seat. What you have at that point is a vacancy to be filled in the way your group's bylaws prescribe.
  3. I, for one, would be very interested in seeing those special rules that make chat work for you. My first concern regarding video/chatroom deliberations is that it is effectively impossible to reign in a problematic chair. Secondarily, video just doesn't scale past the small board size. Then there is the entire problem of being able to trust anything but a roll call vote.
  4. Today
  5. Our non-profit organization has board members on staggered terms, where half the terms are elected in one year and the other half are elected the next year. What is the correct process (as it's not addressed in our bylaws or procedures) if a member currently on the board with a year remaining on their term wishes to be nominated for one of the positions that is up for election at this time? Should they: a) resign from their current position so they can be nominated and be on the ballot for the desired position (and so the position they resigned from can be open for nominations and those nominated can be on the ballot), or b) should they retain their current board position and be nominated from the floor for the currently open position at the time of elections and, if elected, the position they currently hold would be open for nominations from the floor (for the remaining one year term)? Does RONR have direction for this situation?
  6. There was a saying in an organization that I was a part of for several years, "You can tell the history of a chapter by reading its bylaws." Far too often, the response to bad behavior is to try to legislate your way out of it. As observed by others, abusers 'gonna abuse. Best by far to have good people in place with significant freedom of action. In one of the more extreme cases, despite the numerous problems with non-physical meetings, those organizations with ample provision for them are doing quite well this spring compared to those without. In a normal year, the reverse is likely.
  7. Yesterday
  8. There is nothing wrong with permitting the absent member to participate in the meeting by telephone, but, as the others have said, it is not proper to permit him to vote. Technically, it likely requires a two thirds vote to permit him to participate in debate via telephone, but it is perfectly permissible. Edited to add: In addition, this member should not be counted as present for quorum purposes. Also, the more I think about it, I'm not sure that he can technically participate in debate, but it is absolutely permissible to permit him to be heard as the assembly wishes.
  9. In my state, we have open carry. You can walk down the street without a license with your guns and holster, just like Matt Dillon.
  10. Thank you so much! Several of the present Directors were also on our Board in 2015 when similar but even more egregious acts occurred and some corrective action was taken, but not enough and they seem not to have learned anything from it.
  11. Voting is limited to members who are actually (that is, physically) present at the meeting at the time the vote is taken. If this member's vote affected the result, the vote is null and void and constitutes what is called a "continuing breach", because the violation of the rule involves a fundamental principle of parliamentary law. Assuming the member's vote did, in fact, affect the result, any member of the board may raise a Point of Order at a quorate meeting of the board, as long as doing so would make any difference. Any two members of the society who are aware of these actions of the board may initiate a disciplinary proceeding at a general membership meeting—perhaps, to convict and punish some or all of the members of the board, as the facts and the harm done may warrant.
  12. I am reminded of what my national committee man said when we heard about a rule that they use in New York. "You know, in Texas, we have concealed carry."
  13. No. While the extraordinary situation presented this spring has been used by some to justify all-video meetings, the asymmetry presented by this case is entirely beyond what is acceptable absent specific provisions in the bylaws.
  14. The Bylaws do not include or allow for electronic meetings. The majority of the Board had a meeting. They met in person and they had a quorum. One member was not in attendance but was included in the meeting over the phone. Question: Should his vote have been allowed and/or counted or was the fact that he was participating electronically voided his participation?
  15. If by "Y/N vote" you mean what is commonly referred to as an "up or down vote", you should be aware that a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted is debatable and amendable. Nothing found in RONR (11th ed.) authorizes an executive board to require its parent assembly to handle the revision of the bylaws with the use of such an "up or down vote". That's like the cart pulling the horse. Or, putting it another way, it's insubordination by the board, an offence for which the members of the executive board can be punished by means of a disciplinary procedure.
  16. Sure, IF the candidate is present. But present where? The entire electronic voting is a form of absentee ballot. So everyone, including the candidate, is absent. In case it gets lost here, the bottom line is that the election is final. The candidate who won is free to resign and then the vacancy can be filled as per the bylaws. I don't think that the election can be called incomplete.
  17. The vote is online using electionbuddy.com and there was no meeting to move, discuss, and vote on each proposed change separately, nor even a notice that this process was underway. What we've got here is failure to communicate.
  18. I think the presumption that the board acted within its authority is dubious. Boards have only the powers granted to them in the bylaws. And it is a general principle of RONR that interpretation of the bylaws is done by the membership, not the board. Further, it is a specific rule that any questions that arise during an election are decided by the body that is voting.
  19. One of the few motions that is in order at the assigned hour at which to adjourn is a motion to set aside the Orders of the Day. See RONR, (11th ed.), pp. 222, 223.
  20. Yep, and I have seen this used over and over again to abuse the body. By far the best one so far, was when we had not completed the election of delegates and alternates when the time to adjourn had arrived. Despite the strong prior assertions by the chair that the time could not be moved, actual adjournment was delayed by almost an hour and a half.
  21. As for the permissibly of the electronic vote, we are informed that the board, which we presume to be acting within its authority as generally empowered, has acted to interpret the bylaws to permit electronic and by-hands votes (!!!). I'm pretty certain that no RP would support that view, but that is the interpretation of the bylaws that the organization has made. Moreover, this has been the practice of the society for the prior two election, so that even if the board acted without authority, this is now the common practice of the organization, and is permitted until a point of order is raised against it. It is a strong principle in RONR that votes cannot be interrupted. Mechanically, however, the nature of ballot voting is protracted, and I have seen multiple occasions where members have risen to question what was being voted on. The resulting discussion has resulted in the general spoiling of all ballots and the restart of the vote. I have supported such decisions, though they violate the black letter of RONR, because they have permitted the body to find the will of the majority in the most expeditious fashion and did not violate any right that I could determine. We are faced with a variant on this situation here. The multi-day electronic vote (proper or not) is underway, and the sole candidate seeks to withdraw his consent. Building on what Mr. Martin has stated, the general rule appears to be that the candidate has the ability to refuse an election, so long as he does so at the first opportunity. If he is present, then this is immediate. If he is not present, and has previously consented, that consent is presumed to still be operative. While RONR does not mention the withdrawal of consent, it seems like an odd duck to suggest that a candidate cannot withdraw their consent before the conclusion of an election. They can certainly, heaven forbid, become incapacitated. Such an interpretation does not serve the candidate. I do not see how it serves the society, either. In event of simultaneous elections of president and vice president, however, things do get trickier. (One of the many, many joys of email voting!) In particular, in the normal course of events, many organizations provide for the automatic promotion of a vice president to president of the organization. Suppose the bylaws states, "In the event of a vacancy in the office of the president, the vice president shall become president until the end of the term for which he was elected." Now, we have a simultanteous election for president and vice president. The vice president has been elected. If we declare that the election for president has failed, is there not now a vacancy in the office of the president? Do not the bylaws state the the vice president shall be the president? If we declare that the election has failed, but for some reason, the vice president does NOT become president, what if the newly-elected vice president wishes to run for president? How does that go? 1) I do not see how we can advise on this situation without looking to see the exactly language in the bylaws regarding succession. 2) Simultaneous elections with recruited candidates over days are a bad idea. Please don't.
  22. In conventions, it is not uncommon for the program or agenda to include a day and hour at which to adjourn. This should be considered a special order assigned to a certain hour. This is principally because the society has contracted for the use of the convention hall for a fixed period of time, at which it is to be vacated. In these cases, when the assigned hour has arrived, the chair should interrupt the pending business to announce that the hour to adjourn has arrived. After handling any of the few motions that are in order at this point, he may make any necessary announcements and proceed to the closing ceremonies or declare the convention adjourned.
  23. In the specific case I have in mind, it affects the basis for challenge of actions taken at the meeting. And the mindset of the chair who called the meeting is not necessarily the mindset of the members who may or may not attend. In particular, some did attend the meeting, even though they believe the call was impermissible, specifically to be able to challenge any substantial actions that were proposed at the meeting on that basis. That is, they valued the rights of their fellow members not to hazard arrest and fine more than their own.
  24. The rule on pg. 444 states that "An election to an office becomes final immediately if the candidate is present and does not decline, or if he is absent but has consented to his candidacy." If the candidate is present, whether or not he has previously consented to his candidacy is irrelevant. The candidate may determine immediately, at the time of election, whether to decline the election. This is the case whether or not he previously agreed to serve. I do not see how there is any doubt on this point, since the first part of the sentence makes no reference to whether the member has consented to his candidacy. So unless the candidate in your scenario is not present at the time the results are announced, it seems to me he may decline (or perhaps he has changed his mind again and accepts). I acknowledge that the latter case is more complicated due to the wording, but in my view, the rule is the way it is because the presumption is that if a candidate has previously consented to his candidacy, he intends to accept the election. I think this is a presumption, however, not an ironbound contract. If the candidate later indicates that he does not consent to his candidacy, I do not see why the assembly should ignore that.
  25. § is usually used to designate one section. §§ is used to designated multiple sections.
  1. Load more activity
  • Create New...