jstackpo

Is there a quid pro quo?

I take it that the (previously elected) Chair resigned mid-year, and the (previously elected) vice-chairman succeeded automatically to the chair position.  That is the usual course of events.  So now you have a vacancy in the vice-chair position.  Check your bylaws to see how such vacancies are to be filled, commonly for the remaining portion of the term. Other officers are not impacted by all this.

Yup.  RONR, 11th ed.  "Some small organizations..."

I'm not so sure that "any member [may] be allowed to inspect", even with permission of the assembly.  Tellers, appointed by the presiding officer, are the folks entrusted to count ballots (p. 430); the assembly has no say in their selection.   The way to get a second look/count at the ballots is via a recount - p. 418.  Maybe the president will appoint different tellers or everybody can watch the recounting - p. 415, line 22-23. 

I'm looking for where (index doesn't seem to help me) and wondering if RONR speaks to allowing members to at least witness the (re)counting of ballots.

The key (such as it is) is the word "AND" in "present and voting".  Only 8 people fell into that doubly defined category, even though 10 people were in the room at the time the votes were cast.

Absentees.

"Who picks" is a structural (bylaw) rule defining the rights of the members when assembled.

47 minutes ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

I think it is highly unlikely that the organization has provided for an executive committee in the bylaws in order for its members to simply chat and play games.

What do you propose that the powerless ExecComm might do  (other than perhaps read the bylaws carefully and see if there are some powers vested in the ExecComm after all)?

Since two of you disagree, I'll have to straighten both of you out and argue that the OP (Guest Watson) said "bylaws states very specifically that the organization will award a scholarship annually ... and the assembly will elect the recipient."

Keeping in mind that selecting, i.e.nominating, a candidate (for office or scholarship) is quite distinct from actually placing him in office (the latter is called an "election" or an "appointment"), I'd still have to say that ONLY the assembly can actually award the scholarship, while a committee could make a selection (for the assembly's subsequent consideration).  I presume (perhaps rashly) that the assembly could ignore the committee's recommendation(s) and give the scholarship to me, it it chose.  [Just like the Electoral College is not obligated to vote for u-kno-who next Monday.]  If the bylaws say "You do it, assembly!" then the assembly can't delegate that job.

But this conclusion assumes that Guest Watson's bylaws are as explicit as his paraphrase in the original posting.

I'd say yes, the "selection" (winnowing out the best candidate(s) for the scholarship) could be undertaken by a committee but the committee could only recommend its choice(s) to the assembly.  The assembly would have the final ("Yes/No" or "Pick One" from a field of possibilities) decision.  

But, as usual on this B-Board, this is a bylaw interpretation question that will be up to the association to make. We haven't read your bylaws and we aren't members.

And all the association members can have the minutes read to them, following the rules on p. 487.

George reads texts more carefully than I. 

Since the issue of his resignation was placed before the assembly (even though not voted on), the VP is NOT free to withdraw his request to resign on his own.  The question has to be resolved by the assembly.

And I suppose the VP is still in office until the resignation is accepted (or not accepted).

I do believe she's got it!     (Although I don't think it necessary to include the "Illegal Votes" tabulation when there were none.)

See RONR page 417 for a sample Teller's Report of an election.  Abstentions are not recorded in that report, or ANY tellers report.

Perhaps get and give (Christmas is coming!) your dept. chair 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 really 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. Or in your local bookstore.

It might be just what the parliamentarian ordered.

Chances are that whatever RONR has to say about your committee(s) won't apply because you probably have city ordinances that control how an agenda is set up.  Does the mayor have a legal citation to back up his (her) claim of apparently absolute control over the agenda?

There is a LOT of text in RONR about committees in general including committee of the whole.  I'll leave reading that to you!

"Unhealthy precedent"  --  oh, maybe not.  Don't forget that a majority can say "We don't want hear this read to us" and that will be the end of it. And if you are in the middle of a debate on a (formal) motion, it only requires 1/3 to prevent the "reading". Other folks would get the message.

It might be better protocol if the "absent member" got an attending member friend to make the desired arguments.

This will help to maintain the chair's (presumed) impartiality in the matter, as he should always be.  Also there will be no question about the mechanics of introducing the arguments since an attending member will be doing the debating.  The attending member still has to get permission to actually read a document (p. 298) as contrasted with just speaking on the issue.

Depending on how much law is behind "supposed to", he could be censured, I suppose.

'Course, since a tie vote causes the defeat of a motion, his abstaining has an effect:  the motion is defeated.

I trust you will send your former colleagues a link to this discussion.

In my copy of RONR/11 I have a handwritten note (in a handwritten footnote to line 22) reading "and all subsequent meetings too" - RONR/12".   I don't recall the source of that quotation from the future.

I guess it wasn't so obvious. 

What I had in mind was, in bylaws, to be sure that the number of members required to call a special meeting is at least as large as the quorum for the meeting.

3 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

No, they do not, but, the meeting does need a quorum. 

... to do any business.

If, as an example, the quorum for meetings of this association was 25 and the 13 soreheads were the only ones to show up, they would be powerless to do anything about the reason they called the meeting.  About all they could do is adjourn and go home.  And then call another special meeting. This could go on a while.

The lesson of this parable should be obvious.

Say two folks are identified candidates on the electronic ballot; you can (or should be able to) vote for either #1 or #2, OR vote a third button marked "Write-in" - no name attached (yet).    If Mr. Write-in garners enough votes to prevent either #1 or #2 from reaching a majority, then you reopen the floor for nominations.  Some secrecy is lost when one of the proponents of the write-in candidate actually nominates a named person  --  you can be pretty sure who he will vote for.  And there could be more than just one write-in candidate.

So then you re-run the election with all three (or more) identified choices on the electronic ballot and hope for the best  --  the "best" being that someone of the three (or more) named candidates gets a majority.  Or you stay there all night casting ballots.

No.  The act of adopting the motion to amend is sufficient to do the job.

Approving the minutes merely makes them the official record of what has already happened.

I'd say it is more of an argument to disallow any electronic voting system that could not adapt to write-in voting.

Electronic in-meeting voting with current technology (little hand-held radio transmitters that can send "yes", "no" or a number for a multiple choice question) is feasible with only a small potential loss of secrecy.  Any interest in a little essay?  Let me know.