Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Gary Novosielski

Members
  • Content Count

    10,921
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Gary Novosielski

  1. My advice was intended for the general case. The exception, as it so often does, proves the rule. In some cases the proof may exceed two digits, depending on the souse.
  2. No, that would be called a "plurality" vote. Under the rules of RONR, no one is elected with less than a majority, unless your bylaws say so. In order to achieve a majority, a candidate must have not merely the largest number of votes, but more votes than all the other candidates put together, i.e., a true majority (more than half) of the votes cast for that office. If none of the candidates have a majority, the results are announced so that all voters know the vote counts, and another ballot is held, with no names being dropped (unless they withdraw). Nominations may be reopened between ballots if desired. Eventually, it it hoped, voters will settle on a candidate before food and supplies run out.
  3. In general, people who are soused should avoid serving on boards until they sober up.😵
  4. The obligation is not merely to conduct a ballot vote, it is to complete the election. If it takes 158 ballots to do so, then that is the requisite number. If elections are incomplete, then the action required of the chair is to take another ballot, or take some other action to complete the election, such as entertaining a motion to reopen nominations, or to set a time for an adjourned meeting at which balloting will continue. There is no such thing as a motion to close elections. If there is a persistent insufficiency of volunteers to fill critical offices, it might be time for the society to seriously consider taking actions to dissolve the organization.
  5. But safer than swearing at him in person.
  6. No, you continue to vote until someone achieves a majority.
  7. No, it clearly says "the bylaws, or by action of the assembly in the individual case." Those are the only two options.
  8. I agree the timing should not matter, but Mr. Elsman's position would seem to argue otherwise. I don't think there's any doubt that during reading and approval of minutes, the assembly may decide what goes into the minutes by a majority vote. Therefore, the same threshold should apply at any prior time. Once approved, the minutes then fall into the category of something previously adopted, and the rules for amendment change.
  9. Your bylaws contain the names of the officers? That makes no sense.
  10. Have I become undone? (checks fly)
  11. Since corrections to the minutes can be approved by a majority vote, why would we assume that it would take a greater vote to include something if done at the meeting that it occurred, than it would if the matter was included as a correction at the following meeting?
  12. You are understanding me correctly, I believe. I disagree with Mr. Kapur as regards the quorum requirement. Since the statute states that a vote to ratify or reject the budget can occur even in the absence of a quorum, it is my belief that this implies that the motion to ratify may be made even in the absence of a quorum.
  13. No. 11 is not greater than or equal to 11.33... Twelve votes would be required. It would meet the requirement if the threshold were the standard 2/3 vote as defined in RONR, which is: 2/3 of those present and voting (not merely eligible to vote, but actually voting). In that case it would suffice, since 11 is at least twice as much as 4.
  14. Holding two positions at once does not violate any rule in RONR, however it might conflict with the rules in your bylaws, so you'll need to check there. One problem that can occur is that, depending on how your quorum requirements are stated in the bylaws, having fewer members on the board might create problems. Remember, if one person holds two offices, they are still only one person, and count as one member for quorum counting, and one vote for vote counting.
  15. And an actual Committee of the Whole has its own chairman, who reports to the presiding officer of the assembly when the committee rises.
  16. There's a lot of that going around. By the way, RONR recommends strongly that the nominating committee should not be appointed by the president, nor should the president be a member of it. This is not a rule, but a recommendation that organizations adopt such a rule in their bylaws.
  17. You are being clear, but I'm afraid your rules are not clearly thought out. Once the president's resignation was accepted, he became the immediate past president. Your unanimous vote to place the immediate past president in the role of president then restored him back to the office of president. I doubt that was the intent of the rule, but unless the rule is much more explicit than your paraphrase of it, that's what it appears to mean. If your bylaws do not specify that the role of immediate past president depends upon the method of departure from the presidency, then there is no difference if the president died, resigned, was expelled, or moved to King of Prussia, PA. Therefore we are left with the dictionary definitions of "immediate past president" which is the person who was most recently president. It seems clear that this was the person who recently resigned.
  18. And if there are, say, three open seats to be elected ("Vote for up three"), the ballot should also contain three blank lines for write-ins.
  19. Two-thirds of those present and voting -OR- a majority of the entire membership (present or not)
  20. If you have no written rule on the subject apart from RONR, then the change is proper. But note well that this does not effectively prevent any members from giving short explanations of their votes. All it does is prevent them from doing so at the time of voting, which is a prohibition I completely agree with. The appropriate time for members to express and explain their support of or opposition to a question is during debate. There's certainly no rule against doing so at the appropriate time.
  21. They must be read on the demand of a single member. End of story. No vote required.
  22. You can "force" him to obey proper decorum during any meeting, whether in executive session or not. If I had to guess, I would say it's likely that he is interrupting when others have the floor, not waiting to be recognized, and speaking more than his fair share, and that the chair is lax in enforcing the rules. In that situation, the chair shares the blame for the situation on a roughly equal basis with the obstreperous member. As regards executive session, I would say that if the only restricted right is voting, then he has the right to speak and attend executive sessions equally with open sessions. But your bylaws are open to interpretation by your assembly.
  23. But the statute did say something about whether or not a quorum is present, so the motion would apparently be allowed in the absence of a quorum.
×
×
  • Create New...