Weldon Merritt

Maybe so, but I believe 57:19 comes into play only when a bylaws amendment has been adopted, and that amendment necessitates the types of changes that 57:19 addresses.

How would the position of "Chief Operating Officer" (or any other position) be established if not in the bylaws? Especially if a committee established in the bylaws includes that specific position? I suppose there might be some positions that are established outside the bylaws (such as by a standing rule). But it doesn't seem very likely to me that a position not defined in the bylaws might be included in a committee established by the bylaws.

Unless this is some sort of public body (e.g., school board or city council), you don't need to some our of executive session to take a recess. Just recess, and the reconvene, all in executive session. If this is a public body, the answer may or may not be the same, as there may be statutes or other governing rules that would take precedence. So in that event, you may need to check with the board's legal counsel.

Well said, and I totally concur.

Once the motion was stated by the chair and debate began (and especially after it was adopted), who secnoded the motion, or even whether it was seconded at all, is immaterial. If that person's vote made a difference in the outcome (e.g., there was a one vote difference between the ayes and nos, or the vote was tied), and the person indeed was not a member, the vote is null and void. Otherwise, the result stands. It won't make any difference to my answer, but I am curious why no one apparently knew that the person was not a member.

Exactly! So why are you trying to use one to argue use of the other?

I don't buy it. The member is not seeking to change the method of voting, just how a specific vote is recorded. However, I will say that I don't find your interpretation unreasonable. If there is a difference of opinion in the assembly, it can be resolved by a Point of Order and Appeal.

True. I overlooked that fact/ But it doesn't change my opinion of the propriety of a motion to record an individual member's abstention.

I think we are. And if the member's goal is to have the abstention of a single member recorded in the minutes, I see nothing in RONR that would prevent the member from achieving that goal. The assembly could prevent it by voting against the motion. But I don't see how the motion would violate any rule in RONR.

I agree that there is no need to suspend any rules. And I also agree that it would be preferable to move (before the vote is taken) to have a roll call vote. But I disagree that a motion (after the vote) to have a specific member's abstention recorded would be out of order. RONR specifically says that matter not normally included in the minutes may be included by majority vote at the time the minutes are considered for approval. I personally would vote against the motion, unless it was made by the member who abstained (and maybe even then unless that member articulated a good reason), but as chair, I would not rule it out of order.

Well, yes. But that assumes that the entire board is willing to falsify the minutes, and then agree to cover up the falsification. That's why I said they can't legitimately omit the first motion. An assembly can do all sorts of improper things if they are willing to ignore the rules.

True. I didn't think of that.

No! At least not legitimately. The minutes are supposed to reflect what happened at the meeting, not what you wish had happened.

Do the bylaws authorizes these "additional assessment[s] of the membership"? If so, then yes, they are binding on the members, whether are not they were in attendance. But if not (which I suspect is the case), then they cannot be imposed. RONR (12th ed.) 56:19.

Why? The process for amending the budget would be the same regardless of the nature of the mistake. Granted, some mistakes could be so minor (a misspelled word, the meaning of which is obvious, for example) that amending the budget probably would not be necessary. But whether to correct the error it is a question for the board; we have been asked how to do it.

You say "that there are no remaining eligible and willing members to serve beyond the current nominees. (Emphasis added.) That seems to indicate that there are other eligible members who are not willing to serve. This is reinforced by your statement that "any of the [wrote-n] entries on a ballot would either fall into the 'illegal' category or it would just be a repeated name of someone who has been nominated in the past but has not accepted." But it is possible that if one of those eligible but (currently) unwilling persons actually receives a majority vote for a position, they would go ahead and accept the position. Rather than continuing to try to find ways around the clear RONR requirement, your organization would be better off complying with the requirement for the coming election, and then amending the bylaws before the next election to eliminate the requirement for a ballot vote when thee is only one nominee for a given office. But if you do this, I also would recommend that the prohibition on additional nominations be eliminated, so that the members are not necessarily stuck with the candidates nominated by the NC.

If the issue is that the printed copy of the bylaws does not correctly reflect the amendments as adopted (as reflected in the minutes of the meeting where they were adopted), then no, no motion is needed. the copy cam, and should, be corrected editorially. It may be prudent to issue the corrected copy with some sort of explanation.

No! The ballot needs to list the names of the nominees, and one or more lines for write-ins (depending n the number of offices to be filled), with a box or space next to each name and write-in space. Then the voters choices are: (1) place a mark next to the name(s) of the candidate(s) for whom they wish to vote; write in the name(s) of anyone else for whom they wish to vote, and pace a mark next to each of those lines; or (3) abstain, which they can do either by submitting a blank ballot (no names selected) or by not submitting a ballot at all. "Abstain" need not (and arguably should not) be listed as a choice, as it is meaningless. Members marking "abstain" (if that choice were included on the ballot), members submitting a blank ballot, and members submitting no ballot at all, each have abstained (which simply means to not vote), and are not counted toward the number of votes cast.

No, that is not correct. the only legitimate way to vote against a candidate is to vote for another candidate. Even if there is only a single nominee, the voters' choices are to vote for that candidate, abstain, of vote for another eligible person (which may include a write-in candidate).

Thank you, Josh, Rob, and Dan. You have confirmed my initial thoughts on the issue. But I also wondered if maybe the Opinions Committee was right after all.

In the December 2021 issue of the Parliamentary Journal, the Opinions Committee responded to a question regarding Executive Board and Executive Session. The published opinion is fairly lengthy, and most of it is irrelevant to my question, which regards the statement, “Under RONR … board meetings are held in public session, open to the general membership, unless the board has adopted a rule or established a clear custom to the contrary.” (Emphasis added.) In support, the opinion cites RONR 9:24: “A meeting enters into executive session only when required by rule or established custom, or upon the adoption of a motion to do so.” The cited language first appears in the 11the edition, at p. 95, ll. 26-28. The relevant prevision in the 10th edition, at p. 93, ll. 2-3: “board or committee meetings are customarily held in executive session.” So the rule seems to have gone from board meetings being in executive session unless otherwise provided to being in open session unless otherwise provided. That seems to be a fairly significant change between the 10th and 11th editions, yet I don’t recall it being listed as a significant change to the 11th edition. So my first question is, was this indeed an intentional change between the 10th and 11th editions? And my second and more important question is, does this indeed mean that board meetings are open to the general membership unless otherwise provided? That certainly is the conclusion reached in the opinion published in the PJ, although the cited language does not explicitly say so. I will welcome anyone’s views on the issue, but I am particularly hopeful that one of the Authorship Team members will weigh in.

Any such requirement, if it exists, would need to be in the bylaws of the parent organization. That, in itself, does not require that the subordinate unit bylaws be submitted to the parent unit. B ut it does make it more likely that the parent unit bylaws will contain such a requirement.

That's because RONR contains no such prohibition. While new business typically is not brought up under Good of the Order, there is no reason it could not be if it is otherwise in order.

I don't have the citation, but the default rule is that except for the duty of presiding at meetings, that the president has only those powers provided in the bylaws. If the power to cancel a meeting isn't there, he doesn't have it,

Yes, that is what I meant to say. And I would swear that's what I typed. I don't know what happened to "is defeated."