Weldon Merritt

RONR does cover who is allowed to vote. Members are allowed to vote. I suspect that the reason Mr. Martin said that your question is "outside the scope of RONR" is that it involves aa legal interpretation regarding when appointees actually become members. Is it when the governor appoints them, or when they are confirmed by the legislature?

If the position is defined in your bylaws, the only way to remove the position is to amend the bylaws.

No. If your bylaws do not prohibit nominations from the floor, the chair must call for them.

Mr. Brown's answer is a bit more accurate than mine. When I said, "Assuming the vote is not one that requires something more than an unqualified majority," I had in mind votes such as a majority of those present or a majority of the entre membership. But of course, a two-thirds vote also is "something more than an unqualified majority," and both my example and Mr. Brown's meet the requirement for either a majority or a two-thirds vote.

Assuming the vote is not one that requires something more than an unqualified majority, the abstentions are ignored. To give an extreme example, if there are 100 member present, 99 of whom abstain, and one votes in the affirmative, the motion is adopted just as surely as if all 100 had voted in the affirmative.

I have it on reliable authority (the editor) that a correction will be printed in the next NP.

Nathan, everything that you say you want the assembly to be able to do can be accomplished with well-written bylaws. But very little of it could be assured by relying on some sort of "unwritten rule." It seems to me that there are three possibilities regarding contemplated requirements for holding office: Requirements deemed absolutely essential. Put those in the bylaws, with no suspension allowed. Requirements deemed important, but not essential. Put those in the bylaws, but with a provision allowing suspension by some specified voting threshold. Totally irrelevant requirements. Don't put them in any written rule. (But individual members are free to take them into account in their voting.) And of course, it's up to each organization to decide for itself where on that spectrum any proposed requirement falls. The answer may vary greatly among different organizations.

I doubt that there is any such thing as "informal law." As a Supreme Court Justice once said (Unfortunately, which justice and in wat case, I don't recall), "The unwritten law isn't worth the paper it isn't written on." I fully concur with Dr. Kapur.

I will not venture an opinion on the "realness" of the English constitution, but I can say with a pretty high degree of confidence that so far as RONR is concerned, if it's not written, it's not a rule. At best, it's a custom, which, in the event a conflict with a written rule (and a Point of Order citing the written rule), "the custom falls to the ground, and the conflicting provision in the parliamentary authority or written rule must thereafter be complied with." RONR (12th ed.) 2:25.

I don't necessarily think that there should be no qualifications for office, but I do think organization should carefully consider what, if any, qualifications, they want to require. The more qualifications you impose, the smaller the pool of eligible candidates.

I was in the process of responding, but Mr. Mervosh beat me to it with the correct (and more succinct) answer.

How about this:

Or maybe even a quart of order, if the member strongly objects. 😁

You might ask them what they think happens if the motion is defeated. Do they think everyone has to stick around, even though there is no more business to conduct?

I don't think a PTO (Parent-Teacher Organization) has the authority to hire and fire school employees. The school board would have that authority, but not the PTO. Even so, I also find it strange that the PTO Bylaws require administration approval for filling vacancies.

With very few exceptions, motions should be seconded before being debated. But if once debate actually begins, the fact that it was not seconded becomes irrelevant.

No. And for that matter, you can't even have Zoom meetings unless your bylaws authorize them (or you're subject to a procedural statute or gubernatorial order that supersedes the RONR prohibition; but that's a legal question). I also note that even if you were able to amend your bylaws, a requirement that floor nominations be submitted in advance is, in my opinion, a rule of order that can be suspended.

If the motion is tied without the chair having already voted, the rule would be unnecessary, since the chair already has that right (by choosing to vote or not vote). But if the chair has already voted and the result is a tie, it seems to me that the rule would violate the fundamental principle of "one person, one vote." I concur with this.

I'll start by saying I was not (and still am not) particularly confident in the opinion I expressed earlier. But the phrase, " the chair ... simply declares [not "should declare"] that the nominee is elected" seems pretty unambiguous. On the other hand, 42:30 also seems pretty straightforward. I think if I were the chair, I would not, sua sponte, rule a motion for a ballot vote not in order. And if a member raised a Point of Order, I probably would cite both provisions and put it to the assembly.

That seems like it should be in order. But I wonder. The passage I quoted from RONR-12 *which appears t be unchanged form the 11th edition) seems to strongly imply that such a motion would not be in order, absent a suspension of the rules. Either the bylaws require a ballot vote even when there are no more candidates than positions, or they don't. And if they don't. it seems t me that a motion to elect by ballot could be ruled dilatory. However, I suspect most of my colleagues will disagree.

Do the bylaws really say nothing at all about elections? That seems unlikely, but for purposes of my response, I will take your word for it. Since the bylaws do not require a ballot vote for elections, and there were no more nominees than position t be filled, then it indeed is in order (and in fact, the proper procedure) for the chair to declare the nominees elected. "If only one person is nominated and the bylaws do not require that a ballot vote be taken, the chair, after ensuring that, in fact, no members present wish to make further nominations, simply declares that the nominee is elected, thus effecting the election by unanimous consent or 'acclamation.'" RONR (12th ed.) 46:40. If you're not happy with that procedure, then nominate someone else, and move that the vote be taken by ballot. Or for a more long-term solution, propose a bylaws amendment that requires a ballot vote for elections.

You're welcome. But you still didn't tell us whether your bylaws, in fact, actually say that officers must be members in good standing. I suspect that they do, but it also is quite possible that they do not. The RONR default is that anyone (even a non-member) can be an officer. Any eligibility requirements must be specified in the bylaws.

OK; but do the bylaws actually say that to serve as an officer, one must be a member "in good standing"? My colleagues seem to have assumed that the do. And if that assumption is correct, I concur with their responses. But often, members assume that the officers must meet certain eligibility criteria, and when they provide the actual bylaws language, it turns out that there is no such requirement. So it might help of you quote (not paraphrase) the officer eligibility language (if any) in the bylaws.

No. You just take the vote, and if either threshold is reached, the motion is adopted.

Mr. Mervosh beat me to it, but I was about to say much the same thing. Your questions are an excellent illustration of the wisdom of RONR's advice.