Weldon Merritt

I concur with Mr. Brown, and will add that even without a formal motion or declaeration of adjournment, if everyone left, the meeting effectively was adjourned by unanimous consent.

I second that motion!

If the motion was postponed until after lunch, then no other motion was necessary to bring it up again. The chair should have stated it as the next item of business as soon as the meeting resumed after lunch. If the chair did not do so, then either a Point of Order or a Call for the Orders of the Day was approprioate. This assumes that no other motion was pending when the meeting reecessed for lunch. If another motion was pending, then it should have bneen completed first, and then the postponed moption brought back to the floor.

By "not allowed," do you mean that they are specifically prohibited, or just that the bylaws don't provide for them. The defualt is that they are allowed, unless the bylaws prohibit them.

I agree, and I should have noted that exception.

As they say, "Great minds think alike." 😀 I was so focused on typing my response that I didn't notice that you already had responded saying essentially the same thing. Otherwise, I probably would have just said that I concur with your response.

I can't give you a "ruling," but I can tell you that unless your bylaws specifically prohibit partial abstentions, it is perfectly legitimate to vote for fewer candidates that there are postions to be filled, and those votes must be credited to the candidates from whom they were cast. BTW, unless your bylaws authorize plurality voting, it was not proper to elect "the three with the most votes" unless that all received a majority of the votes cast. If one or more did not receive a majoity, only those who did should have been declared elected, and there should have been additional rounds of voting to fill the other postions. Also, while it was proper to "throw out" (not count) the blank ballot, it was not proper to thorw out the ballot with five names circled. Although none of the votes could be credited to any candidate, the ballot itself should have been counted as an illegal ballot, and included in the number of votes cast (which could change the number needed for a majority). Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately from the viewpoint of those declared elected), it's too late now to raise a point of order about either error.

My response is a bit delayed, due to my being away and without ready access to my computer for a couple of days. But for what it's worth, I concur with the previous responses. The motion from the first meeting stands unless and until "clear and convincing evidence" of the absence of a quorum is presented at a regular or properly called future meeting at which a quorum is present.

And "these purposes" are: RONR, p. 238, l. 21 to p. 239, l. 9. So the exception is very limited indeed.

I agree that it is not an actual nomination, and I didn't say it was. I said that "the member has, if effect, nominated that person." (Emphasis added.) The root of "nomination" is "nomen," meaning "name." Inlcluding the persons name in the inquiry at least puts it into the members' minds as a potential write-in, for whom they might not othertwise have thought of voting. And unless the bylaws require that someone be formally nominated to be elected, that's really all that any nomination does. (Well, except for having the nominee's name included on the printed ballot, if one is used. But that may or may not be a big advantage. I know of one political election where the only candidate actually listed on the ballot came in third in the election!)

Unless your bylaws have a different provision specifically dealing with a vacancy in the office of president, you are the new president. The elction you should be holding is to fill a vacnacy in the office of vice president.

Just to add another nuance, a member could make a Parliamentary Inquiry to ask, "Is it in order to nominate [name] for [office] at this time?" Even if the chair responds that it is not, the member has, if effect, nominated that person. As long as write-ins are not prohibited, that might encourage some members to vote for that person. I saw something very much like this done at an NAP convention a few years ago. After a nominee had been defeated for one office, a member asked if it would be possible to nomnate the same person for another office. The chair answered that it was not, but at least the idea of a write-in had been planted. (It didn't work, as the "nominated" member did not get enough votes to win the other office, either.)

Only if your bylaws provide for it.

Yes, on the "dung heap."

No.

Those two things are apples and oragnes. I'm not sure how we can make it any plainer. If you have an official meeting (inlcuding by Skype if that is authorized in your governing documents), then all you need is a majority vote. If you do not have an official meeting, then the committee's report must be agreed to by all members.

Guest Amy asked about "committee members participation in a meeting via skype." It's not clear whether she meant that all members would be participating by Skyoe, or that one member wanted to participate by Skype. I agree that if a quorum is present at the same physical location (whether or not someone calls in by Skype), the report can be adopted by an ordinary majority vote by those physically present. There would be nothing wrong (IMO) with the committee hearing from a member calling in by Skye, but that member could not particpate in the vote.

I concur that if the committee is to be able to hold offical meetings electronically, the autoriozation to do so must be in the bylaws, or possibly in a standing rule as noted by Mr. Martin. However, RONR also provides a possible out for committees that cannot easily meet: P. 503, ll. 24-28. But that is only if the committee report is unanimous. Otherwise, a proper meeting must be held.

Guest Judy B Butler, please post your question as a new topic. The forum works best that way, even though your question may seem similar to the one discussed in this thread.

I agree. But I don't think that affects whether the ballots sent by the organization are invalid.

Good question. I have no idea, but I suspect that the language the member quoted is from a knock-off version. I suppose it is possible that an earlier v ersion of RONR might have ocntained the language, but I am doubtful.

An organization’s bylaws provide: This is the only language in the bylaws regarding mail balloting. RONR, p. 424, l. 34 to p. 425, l. 8 provides: The organization mailed the ballots with instructions to return them to a specified address (the president’s) but did not include an inner envelope. The ballots did not specify that they should not be signed, but there was no signature space on them, nor any other space for voter identification. It is not clear whether they were folded in the manner suggested by RONR. A member is now contending “that the ballot as mailed to the membership is not valid.” In support of his contention, the member refers to some purported provisions from RONR. The language quoted by the member is not from either the 11th or the 10th edition (I didn’t try to go back any further) but has similar provisions about use of an inner and outer envelope. Interestingly, it also includes the statement that, “Voting by mail cannot be a secret ballot, as it is necessary for the tellers to know by whom each vote is cast.” Even if the member had quoted the correct language from RONR, it is my opinion that failure to follow the RONR provisions about folding of the ballot and use of an inner envelope would not invalidate the voting, so long as the provisions in the organization’s bylaws are followed (which they were). Although there is no actual conflict between the bylaws and RONR (it would be possible to comply with the bylaws while still using a two-envelope system and making sure the ballot is folded as suggested by RONR), I think it would take a more serious error to invalidate the ballots than what the member suggests. Does anyone disagree with my view?

Guest Jamie, please post your question as a new topic.

I just now had a chance to check back for responses. (Just returned from Pig Out in the Park.) So far, everyone is in agreement that the maker does not get a second shot at priority in recognition. That's the way I was leaning as well, but I wanted to see if anyone had a different take on it. I think Mr. Brown's quote from p. 379, which I had not considered, nails it. Thanks to all who reesponded.

I appreciate all the responses I received to this earlier post, which I passed on to the friend who had contacted me about the issue. I have since heard from him, and the assembly managed to successfully resolve the issue by simply withdrawing the resolution. The same friend has now allseed another question that I have decided to submit to the forum. RONR, p. 188, ll. 28-34, provides, The question is whether this means that the make of the motion again gets preference in recognition. If the text ended at the semicolon, I think there would be a strong argument that the maker would get preference again. But the text that follows the semicolon could be read to mean that only the right to two speeches per member is retired, and the maker gets no special treatment. Does anyone have any thoughts on the question?