jstackpo

12 hours ago, Guest Rick Reuss, PT said:

Our state organization is considering not publishing the vote totals of state elections to spare the feelings of folks who have not garnered enough votes to be elected. Also not publishing the results of the voting in the minutes of the meetings. Where in RONR may I find a citation which would prohibit such a practice.  Indeed, RONR is the parliamentary authority in our Bylaws. Thanks!

Hey Rick,

Just tell the State  PTA Chapter, I said they have to publish the numbers.  That should take care of it all (even though I resigned from the APTA bylaws review business a few weeks ago).

Best,

John Stackpole

12 hours ago, MAC702 said:

I will try to help us fix one thing at a time.

That's probably the best way to do it, and good luck!

But the recommendation to raise the guest fees should have been voted upon as a separate issue,

I agree (with somebody): the association should, or must, formally authorize  voting outside a meeting place for the voting to be valid.

Majority vote decides.

Certainly.  Quorum is "members present", not down the hall somewhere. No business until the voters all come back, or enough of them anyway.

Suppose a member came on time, signed in, and then slept through the whole thing. Does that count?  (It does happen.)

Best definition of attendance I know of, as applied to churches:  He/she was there when the collection plate went around.

1 hour ago, Guest Puzzled said:

 If mailed before, candidate will be disqualified.

Do the bylaws really say that??

Please quote the exact text of the bylaw.

2 hours ago, Guest Thanks to both of you said:

someone who believes they are the expert and know very little

Unfortunately, there is a lot of that going around.

Or leave early. 

Moral of the story:

Always check for a quorum BEFORE opening the meeting (page 25, line 10) and, although it isn't actually required, document that fact in the very opening lines of the minutes:  "A quorum being present, President Jamison called the meeting to order at [date & time] ... "

And keep in mind:  if the tellers do read the report, they (or the reporting teller) do NOT declare who won the individual races.  That is the chairman's job.

Minutes, for a "closed" (I presume you mean what RONR calls an "Executive Session", page 95) or an open meeting, should only contain motions that were made, and how they were disposed of: adopted, defeated, postponed to the next meeting, or whatever. See p 468ff.  Minutes record what was done, not what was said.

Indeed it is the proper thing to do, to read out the numerical vote results for the members to hear -- see p. 417, line 18 ff. - and to include them in the minutes

Consider some possibilities:

1)  The winner got nearly all the votes and the loser has had a long history of fruitlessly running for office.  Reading the vote count might send him a message, that it is time to quit making a fool of himself.

2)  The vote is "reasonably" close.  This way the loser will be encouraged to try again, as it seems, by the vote, that he has a good deal of potential, and many friends, but just went up against a better person this time.  This may help to keep a good candidate in the game.

3)  The vote is "extremely" close - one or two votes different.  The assembly may very well want to order a recount (RONR p. 419, line 1, see index also) just to be sure of the result.  This way there are no (or fewer) hard feelings.

4)   The president, when declaring who won, makes a simple mistake and names the wrong person, or he does not understand the vote required to adopt the motion (majority, 2/3, &c.) and states the "wrong" outcome.

5)   The tellers make an error.  Reading the results out loud may not help to catch this but studying the printed documentation  in the minutes at leisure probably would.  The documentation would also serve as evidence if there were serious questions about the outcome.

Without the teller having read the numbers, how will anybody (except the teller, if he is paying attention) know to correct this?

6)   The winner of the election (or partisans of the winning side of a critical issue) could weigh the numerical results in terms of whether they have a "mandate" to proceed at full bore, or whether there might be some fence mending to look after first.

If the vote results were not made immediately available to the membership, none of the above good things could happen.

And this listing doesn't even mention the myriad possibilities for knavery or outright fraud that are available when vote counts are kept secret.

But, if there was or is time, you could amend your bylaws. This might, of course, substantially blur the line(s) between Associate Members and regular general members.  The choice is up to you.

1 hour ago, Tomm said:

Would it be appropriate to make a motion to "Recieve the report for future consideration without adoption?"

Would that allow acceptance with no commitment?

Why go to the bother?  After the report (requiring no immediate action) has been presented, the chair can say "Thank you" and hand it to the secretary for safe keeping.  Nothing more is necessary.

In reference ASF1970's "Lastly..." paragraph:

Once again your veteran member is wrong.   Since this is a revision, any member can propose  additional amendments, even to the sections for which there were no amendments originally.  But those proposals get treated as any other specific amendment would:  stated, debated, voted on (majority), and announced as to whether the amendment carried or failed.  All this is prior to the final vote on adopting the "General Revision".

I highly recommend finding (hiring-?) a professional parliamentarian to guide your  chair through the revision process.  I have been to meetings of parliamentarians who royally screwed up the process of adopting a complex revision -- it can be real tricky.

2 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Are you planning on giving us that page number?  

Oh, why not...    174, 492, & 496

Non-members of the appointing body may serve on the board's committee.  See page for some special restrictions in that regard.

I can't tell what you are asking in your second question, for sure, but I suspect the answer is "no".

12 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

Loss of memory, hearing and vision sure take a lot of the fun out of growing old!!!

Au contraire...   It, memory loss in particular, opens up whole new vistas of things to be learned.  Just because you may have learned them once or twice before, doesn't spoil the pleasure of discovery.

I suppose, but a cleaner way would be to refer the matter to a special (ad hoc) committee while the "old board" is in place, with instructions to report the matter to the "new board" when it has its first meeting.   Page 489, line 5. 

13 minutes ago, Newbie said:

Are the 2 new members allowed to vote...

Yes, they are.   A member has a right to vote at meetings of the assembly (including Board meetings) of which he/she is a member.

Presumably, the 2 new board members will exercise common sense voting on matters that they were not present for, but that is up to them.

Whence your rule that the Treasurer cannot make motions? 

It is not an RONR rule provided that the Treasurer is a member of the association.

Clearly, your two goals, "counter-packing" vs recruitment, are totally incompatible. Good luck!

3 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

RONR is pretty clear that voting takes place only after nominations have been closed.

And that the ability to cast your vote cannot be transferred to someone else, i.e. given to a proxy (which is what handing you ballot to someone else to actually cast), unless such is authorized in the bylaws