jstackpo

5 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

Okay, but who is ineligible here?

Whoever the bylaws say are.  That's the footnote on p. 441.

Not exactly -- they would resign their former position if (and only if) they won the election; so the just remain in their current office if they lose.

Simple answer: no.

8 minutes ago, George Mervosh said:

This was settled a while back ...

Lots of folks (sees like more and more, lately) have better memories that I do.

51 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

 Do you have a citation?

No chapter and verse, but a agenda is a motion, that can be amended first, which gets adopted, (p. 372) hence it goes in the minutes, like all motions. 

I know of no list of "motions that do not go in minutes" in the book.  Should there be one?

Ballots with a name for an ineligible person (properly identified, of course) are treated as "illegal votes" p. 441 & 416.

Enough "illegal votes" can cause a legitimate candidate to fail to reach a majority.

40 minutes ago, Guest Follow up question said:

It seems that there would have to be a proper way to avoid this from happening?

You would have to adopt a bylaw provision to permanently exclude the lowest vote getter (whether on the original ballot or as written in) from future repeated election attempts. (Page 441, footnote)

Be careful what you wish for; as RONR notes, the "low man" might turn out to be a dark horse compromise favorite, eventually.

14 minutes ago, Guest Follow up question said:

If our by laws state that if 3 or more members are running for a position and during the first ballot no member recieves the required majority, the member with the lowest vote total is dropped. This continues until one member recieves a majority of the votes. The question is: if a write in member recieves the lowest vote total on the first ballot, is that member dropped and not eligible to be written in on the second round of ballots?

This is a bit unusual (of course, or you wouldn't be asking about it here) but...

Page 441 (including the footnote) suggests that the write-in person cannot be excluded from being written-in on subsequent ballots. 

About all you can do is either trust in the judgement of the voters not to write-in his/her name repeatedly, and/or encourage the person to announce (like W.T. Sherman) "If elected I will not serve".

15 hours ago, Hieu H. Huynh said:

I would leave out the agenda from the minutes.

But...  if the Agenda was adopted (at the start of the official business meeting) it IS included in the minutes.

And if the committee is making a report to the superior body, that report is supposed to be adopted, in the committee, by a majority vote, a quorum being present.  No quorum -- no report.

Self-Removal until the motion in question is finally disposed of (adopted, defeated, postponed, &c. at the meeting) -- page 394.

A "poll" or a survey seems much akin to a "straw poll" which RONR explicitly says is improper - p. 429.

I'd suggest that you set the voting threshold at 2/3 of the ballots returned.  That is closest to the standard "2/3 vote".   And require a minimum number of ballots to be returned. 

And lots of other things in the article about e-meetings (and e-voting) referenced earlier.

47 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

it may well be advisable to adopt additional rules governing how such votes are conducted,

Yes, indeed.  There are a substantial number of concerns with e-mail voting; you can find a compendium of them in the last half of this document...  https://www.dropbox.com/s/g8w31eocwqx067h/E-Meetings 2012.docx?dl=0

32 minutes ago, Tomm said:

Tabled by the Board until one can be found.

Since someone is, presumably, looking it sounds as though the Board is actively working on the problem.  Perhaps a committee of one, the looker, is the committee to which the task has been assigned, at least implicitly.

But it would indeed help if the Board made its plan a tad clearer.

To give a definitive answer as to just what the ExecComm can do, one would have to read your bylaws with care (to see how much authority to act the ExecComm actually has) and the exact text of the motion to refer (to see if that was consistent with the bylaws, &c.).

Both of these tasks are something a professional parliamentarian can undertake.  If the association doesn't have one handy, you could contact the National Association of Parliamentarians or the American Institute of Parliamentarians (Google can help with  that task) for a referral.

How's this sound...

[Meeting called to order]

Then right away...

Member (M): Mr. Chairman! [Moderator, President, whatever]  I move that we recess the meeting until 15 minutes after the close of the Service.

[With luck} "Second"

Chair states motion.  Debate follows where member M can explain why.

Vote eventually.  Majority Decides.

The above presumes that the Chairman knows the rules and follows them properly.   If he/she doesn't, start raising appropriate points of order -- see page 247ff.   Be sure to have some friends with you to back you up in an appeal.

Tell the chair what you plan to do -- no point in blindsiding him.  That way he can check the rules and be ready to do things properly.

If an resolution (that was never formally made in the first place, even though listed in a planning agenda) is not somehow disposed of (by adoption, defeat, referral to a committee, &c.) it is indeed "dead".  You could say it was never even born.

The ones referred to the ExecComm are alive and well and awaiting action by the committee.

I am presuming that your constitution / bylaws includes RONR as the association's parliamentary authority, of course.

29 minutes ago, Guest policies and proceedures said:

Is the board in order. 

No, not if the association is following the rules in RONR.

If they are not... time for a new board.

If the Board formally approved the p&ps, then the general membership can require that the minutes of the approval meeting (which should include the text of the p&ps that were adopted) be read to them at a meeting - p. 487, line 17ff.  Requires a 2/3 vote or majority with notice.

See RONR, page 439, line 22, and elsewhere.  See "write-in" in the index, plus pages 431, 442.

It, however, is a decision making technique that is fraught with peril.  See:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xqq1o7s9qsxv933/Why the RONR System.docx?dl=0

The article deals mainly with the motion - primary amendment - secondary amendment process, but there is a reference to the runoff system in it too.

You shut down the organization.  Or threaten to.  Sometime that brings candidates out of the woodwork.

But seriously folks...  check the bylaws -- the current officers may stay in office while you beat the bushes.

21 minutes ago, Newbie said:

I have also been voted in as President of the Board for the next year, effective now.

I believe we should still formulate an addition to our Bylaws, have them approved by the Bylaw-required 2/3 vote for acceptance, and get them on file with our Registry of Deeds.

First of all, congratulations on your election (or my deepest sympathies, as appropriate).

Yes, you should amend  the bylaws to allow e-mail voting (particularly since you have been doing it for some time now anyway!). Follow what Chris just wrote (he types faster than I do).  You might also, as a cya move, propose a motion, at a regular meeting, stating that the association ratifies (see RONR page 124) al actions adopted by e-mail in the past. Sort of a blanket after the fact approval.

For a newbie in office, I highly recommend getting 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.

Get copies for your board members and committee chairs, as well.

And for "presidential responsibilities", see RONR p, 448 and p. 454ff.  Plus whatever may be in your bylaws.

37 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

Why? They could just not include that item in the report.

But only if the dissident committee member agreed to sending the report with the specific information (whatever it might be) removed from the report.

And who knows, perhaps one of the other committee members would object to that and there would still be no unanimity, so no report.