jstackpo

2 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

If the candidate who they support is still on the ballot, why not allow it?

Another possibility:  The absentees see how the first round of voting went and decide to vote for a different candidate in the second round.  The voters might see that their favored (first round) candidate is a lost cause and then vote for their second choice.

By the way... the Borda count takes care of this possibility and will obviate the necessity of multiple rounds of voting.

If you have to do a re-vote (because of a tie, no majority, &c.) then ALL the voters get to cast new ballots, so be sure those not present get the opportunity.  Absentee ballots do not get "reused".

Since the president has no authority to table a motion on his own (assuming you have no special rules granting that authority), any member can simply raise a point of order that the president is behaving improperly.

Here's a link to a short essay that may help to clear up your questions.

1 hour ago, Joshua Katz said:

...definition of majority, so even if there are, say, 20 members, so that a majority is 10...

Oops, a majority ("more than half") of 20 is 11, not 10.

More details available here:

https://www.dignitymemorial.com/obituaries/annapolis-md/henry-robert-iii-8111126

For those of us near enough to Annapolis MD, Jan 18 & 19 (Friday & Saturday)...

Final arrangements for memorializing Henry M. Robert III are now complete.

 

There will be viewings at John M. Taylor Funeral Home, 147 Duke of Gloucester St, Annapolis, MD 21401 on Friday, January 18, 2019 from 2 to 4 pm and from 6 to 8pm EST.

 

There will be another viewing in front of the main altar at St. Mary's Catholic Church, 109 Duke of Gloucester Street, Annapolis, Maryland 21401 on Saturday, January 19 from 8:30 to 10:15am, followed at 10:30 by a Mass of Christian Burial.

 

Immediately after the Mass he will be interred in the Redemptorist Cemetery on the church property, and then there will be a reception at the Charles Carroll House (historic home of a signer of the Declaration of Independence) also on the church property. All three sites are within walking distance of the church parking lot.

 

[Thank you Burke Balch for making sure that we are notified of these final arrangements for our dear friend Henry.]

That's how I read your rule.

A language quibble or two: 

"two thirds majority" is a tad infelicitous; better to say "two thirds vote".

An abstainer really isn't "counted as a vote against.".  He isn't "counted" at all since he didn't do anything (i.e., vote) to be counted.   Better to note that the abstainer just didn't contribute to the 2/3 vote needed for adoption.  As you note that is "in effect" a "no" vote, but it is a virtual one, and only because of your "2/3 of everybody" rule.

Since, as described on page 371, the "agenda" is simply a list of business items which, when the agenda is adopted, are placed in the "General Orders" portion of a business meeting, the adoption of an agenda places NO restrictions on items of business not on the list that can and properly should be introduced in the "New Business" portion of the order of business.  It sounds like User's "Miscellaneous" is just an (informal) name for "New Business".   The standard order of business is already established by the inclusion of RONR in the bylaws -- page 353.

A reason for adopting an agenda would be to give those listed items priority in the meeting over "surprise" New Business items, especially controversial ones.

Correction:  Henry was 98 and some months old, not 89.    We should all live so long...

I just got word that Henry Robert III died yesterday at his home in Annapolis at age 89 and some months.  I'll try to keep the B-Board posted when other information arrives.

Yes, but only by spelling out those distinctions in the bylaws.

The absence of particular members, whether ex-officio or "regular" (they are all members, after all) makes no difference in the validity of business in the meeting, unless the attendance falls below the quorum requirement.

They can meet wherever they (a majority presumably) wish.   Bon appetit! 

2 hours ago, Weldon Merritt said:

Dr. Stackpole, has an exhaustive list of reasons, which I won't try to reiterate. (Maybe he will post them later.)

With an invitation like that how could I do otherwise...

 IPP is a Bad Idea:

And here's some reasons why the position is a bad idea:

In my personal view, setting up an "official" Immediate Past President (IPP) position is not a particularly good idea.  The most telling argument is the real possibility of a close and bitter race for the presidency, with the current president running (for a second term) against an "outsider".  And the outsider - the "reform candidate", perhaps - wins but is still stuck with the thorn of the IPP on the Board in a position to snipe at the new president.  And perhaps attempt to undermine the new president's plans.  Not to mention vote against them.

If the erstwhile president is a "good guy" the new president can (usually, depending on the bylaws) appoint him to a pre-existing committee - or even have him chair one, which might put him on the Board - as the new president sees fit.  That way the IPP's experience and value can be put to good use, when needed, without the danger of setting up an adversarial situation which would require a bylaw amendment to get out of.

Here's some more reasons

1) The President resigns and wants nothing to do with the organization.
 
2) The President simply doesn't run for election again because he's had enough, and never shows up at a board meeting.
 
3) The President is booted out of office for being incompetent, or for something more nefarious.
 
4) The President dies.
 
5) The President resigns and moves (wants to help but isn't around).

6) Even worse is the bylaw assignment of the IPP to chair a committee - such as nominating.  Then he, the IPP, dies/quits/leaves town, &c.  You are then stuck with an unfillable (by definition) vacancy.

Note that except for item 4, the IPP may well be part of the quorum requirement for meetings, even though he never shows up.

Our suggestion is to amend your bylaws to eliminate the position.

Oh.. Kay... suppose there is a vacancy on the Board for whatever reason.  How, who, or what group, has the bylaw given authority to fill the vacancy?  I get the impression that you are (relatively) new to the board.  How did you get there?

For that matter, do your bylaws say how many board members there are supposed to be? 

18 minutes ago, Leo said:

A bylaw states, “The board is subject to the delegates at the annual meeting."

And if you want to get picky with the English language, this provision merely prevents the Board from acting independently during the time of the Annual Meeting.  It says nothing about subsequently. and your other provisions grant authority for the Board to do as it pleases when the association is between meetings.

Furthermore, after the annual meeting is over, there are no more "delegates" as such -- RONR, page 237ff. -- so there is nobody around for the Board to be subject to.

You are more than welcome to bug us to your heart's content.

Tell your nay-saying friends to look no further than page 3 of RONR  (if their attention span is adequate to get them that far in) where they will read "A member ... has the right ... to vote."  Couldn't be more solid grounds than that.

Remembering, that if you do the 2-year election first, the non-winners (if any) may be nominated for the one year position.

On the basis of that general authorization to do stuff, I withdraw my "doubtful".  But it may still be a bit dicey and could engender some points of order precipitating debate over interpretation of how extensive the bylaw "authorization" might be.

Seems doubtful.  Page 482, lines 27-29.

1 minute ago, Thomas said:

I've been pouring through the 11th edition, also attending our league meetings which has a little more experience with Robert's Rules

You might do well to get yourself a copy of

RONRIB:

"Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief", Updated Second Edition (Da Capo Press, Perseus Books Group, 2011). It is a splendid summary of all the rules you will ever need in all but the most exceptional situations. And only $7.50! You can read it in an evening. Get both RONRIB and RONR (scroll down) at this link: 

http://www.robertsrules.com/inbrief.html

Or in your local bookstore.

And give (late Christmas present) copies to your board members.

A useful response to a questioning "other member" (if a bit confrontational) is to ask him/her to show you the rule that prohibits the Sgt-at-Arms from voting for himself.  He won't be able to, of course, unless it is a rule hidden away in your bylaws. Don't take "Oh, it's in Roberts somewhere" for an answer!!

1 hour ago, Thomas said:

... as he is the current Sgt. in Arms.

Does being in the position of "Sgt in Arms" give the person the right to vote?   Or

Are you saying that someone must be a member of the association to be the Sgt. in Arms?

I think we are all in agreement here that a member can vote for himself but we are wondering what being Sgt. in Arms has to do with that.

BTW, the phrase in RONR is Sgt-AT-Arms (p. 350, line 27 & other indexed places) -- is your "IN" arms  something different?  Just wondering.

Under the standard (i.e., RONR) definition of majority vote, what matters is that there be more "Yes" votes than "No" votes for a motion to carry (including the possibility of zero "No" votes) and abstentions do not count (and need not be counted AT ALL).

The only "quorum" requirement is that there be enough voters -- members -- present even though some may not vote at all.  "Enough", in a committee, is commonly more than half of the membership. Abstentions have no effect on the quorum.

So in both your examples, the motion carried.

Check your bylaws for possible departures from these standards.

1 hour ago, Gary Novosielski said:

those who did are elected, and a second ballot is held for the remaining unfilled spots

The opportunity for nominations should be given before the second (and third...) election.  Who knows, the two who were not elected (no majority) in Gary's example, may have lost for very good reasons and additional possibilities may have to be considered.