Gary Novosielski

I'm wondering how a Membership election can be postponed to a Board meeting.

A "No" vote is improper for any candidate if the rules in RONR apply.

If a ballot vote is being held for an unopposed candidate, a blank space should be provided for a write-in vote, but voting not to fill the position is not an option.  Elections are held to decide who shall fill an office, not whether the office should be filled.

For that matter, all positions on the ballot should have room for the appropriate number of write-in votes for that office.

The chair should call for additional nominations from the floor before balloting begins, not only in the event of a first-ballot failure to elect.

Also, I don't think it has been established that the bylaws permit mail-in voting, so that may be an issue.  And it is madness to consider any voting method where mail-in votes are combined with in-person votes, so it would be wise not even to consider going down that path.

A "No" vote is improper for any candidate if the rules in RONR apply.

If a ballot vote is being held for an unopposed candidate, a blank space should be provided for a write-in vote, but voting not to fill the position is not an option.  Elections are held to decide who shall fill an office, not whether the office should be filled.

For that matter, all positions on the ballot should have room for the appropriate number of write-in votes for that office.

The chair should call for additional nominations from the floor before balloting begins, not only in the event of a first-ballot failure to elect.

Also, I don't think it has been established that the bylaws permit mail-in voting, so that may be an issue.  And it is madness to consider any voting method where mail-in votes are combined with in-person votes, so it would be wise not even to consider going down that path.

On 5/20/2024 at 11:58 AM, Atul Kapur said:

Yeah, but a majority of what? I think the definition of the vote required to adopt an ordinary resolution us different than RONR's majority vote. However, I don't say this to enter into discussion on its meaning; rather to say that you are quoting Alberta law and should consult with a lawyer experienced in that particular Act.

Also, it says the corporation may remove a member of the board.  I'm not sure at a meeting of what body this would occur.

On 5/20/2024 at 1:19 AM, Guest Fish outta water said:

The following day, the members that were not involved, chimed in with frustration that the matter was handled this way.

If I were one of those members I would have chimed in with more than frustration.  I think I would chime in with at least a Point of Order that the meeting was illegal not properly held, and that any business conducted was null and void.  I might continue to chime with a motion for an investigative committee to ascertain whether those officers should be subject to discipline, including possible removal from office.

On 5/20/2024 at 11:36 AM, Weldon Merritt said:

If you are talking about a meeting of the full assembly or of  teh biard, the answer is "yes." If you are talking about a committee meeting, the answer is "no."

See RONR (12th ed.) 48:1-16 for information on minutes. I can't immediately put my finger on the proviants that committees do not norm lay keep formal minutes, but maybe someone else will find and post it.

Here's one:

50:24 Committee Procedure. In small committees, the chairman usually acts as secretary, but in large ones and many standing committees, a secretary may be chosen to keep a brief memorandum in the nature of minutes for the use of the committee.

And I must admire your use of the original Gaelic in referring to "the board". 😇

On 5/20/2024 at 9:53 AM, Guest Malcolm said:

(elswhere [sic] it states ordinary resolution is only 50%)

I'd put money it's higher than that, if only a tiny bit.  😇

On 5/19/2024 at 4:44 PM, Pastor Tim said:

We had 34 members present at a recent meeting. A motion was voted upon and received 30 yes votes and 0 no votes.  Four people (for reasons that are not clear--as there was no reason to abstain on this particular vote--chose not to vote.

How should such a vote be reported? 

• "the motion passed 30-0"? 
• Is it fair to report "the motion passed without opposition."

If a counted vote or a ballot vote was actually ordered, then the count of 30 Yes and 0 No should be recorded in the minutes.  If a roll-call vote was done, the names of all members and how they responded is recorded.  Otherwise, the minutes should merely say that it was adopted.  

Members do not need a "reason" to abstain on any particular vote, and even if they have one, they are not required to reveal it to anyone else.  Abstentions should generally not be called for, counted, or entered in the minutes, since they are not votes.

It would be technically correct to say that the motion was adopted without opposition, or unanimously, but since this is of no particular interest from a parliamentary point of view, there is no reason to say it.

On 5/19/2024 at 5:34 PM, Sandy Sunshine Girl said:

I stumbled on this interesting thread. I have been a County Board member only 1.5 years. Are you saying that an elected Board member can be voted to be removed from his/her seat?

We are saying that under certain conditions this may or may not be possible.

I depends to a great degree on the exact language in the bylaws and other applicable regulations—information which it has been frustratingly difficult to pry out of the original questioner.

So the answer remains: It depends.

On 5/19/2024 at 3:26 PM, Sandy Sunshine Girl said:

Thank you, Mr. Brown. I discovered it when reading the minutes for this meeting. Only two people voted on the last two items voted upon. So what I think would be appropriate would be to oppose the Motion to accept last month's minutes. If I were to do that, what is the next step for them to do according to Robert's Rules of Order?

The fact that only two people voted does not prove that quorum was lost.  There could have been others who abstained from voting, which would not be reflected in the minutes.  Is there additional proof that quorum was lost?  If not, then it is probably too late to do anything about this error.

There is no such thing as "opposing" the motion to approve the minutes, since they are approved automatically once any corrections have been considered.  The only way to object to the approval of  the draft minutes is to offer a correction.  But you can't offer a correction that last month's motion was invalid, because that is not what actually happened last month.  The minutes are a record of what happened, not what should have happened.  You can't change history by falsifying the minutes.

On 5/19/2024 at 4:20 PM, Inquisitive Secretary said:

Our bylaws say nothing, anywhere regarding recusal. One of the board members is recused from this particular topic because they are a relative of the member possibly being disciplined and they have previously signed a conflict of interest doc in that regard.

The other board member's recusal is currently being debated. This board member is the subject of the the alleged grievance. I'm not certain how this would be considered since this board member would be considered biased.

If your bylaws say nothing, then presumably the  rules in RONR apply.  

The rules in RONR say this: 

45:4 Abstaining from Voting on a Question of Direct Personal Interest. No member should vote on a question in which he has a direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members of the organization. For example, if a motion proposes that the organization enter into a contract with a commercial firm of which a member of the organization is an officer and from which contract he would derive personal pecuniary profit, the member should abstain from voting on the motion. However, no member can be compelled to refrain from voting in such circumstances.

There's nothing there about being a relative of a member being disciplined.  There's nothing there about signing a "conflict of interest doc" whatever that is.  There is nothing there about "debating" recusals; members decide for themselves whether to abstain.  There's nothing there about being "considered" biased—by whom?  It could be argued that a member who is the subject of a "grievance" (whatever that is) should abstain, but without knowing the details I would not care to guess—and it would still be up to the individual member.  It seems to me that people are making up rules that don't exist and insisting they be followed.  That's not how it works.

If your bylaws contain conflicting provisions, then of course you would follow those, but if your bylaws are actually silent, you should be following the rules in RONR.

On 5/19/2024 at 8:51 AM, Josh Martin said:

It seems easier to just nominate someone else from the floor.

That's certainly the backstop action.  But I think if there is time for the Nominating Committee to come up with a new name, it doesn't hurt to insist that they do their job.  I agree that there appears to be nothing to prevent a person in this situation from being elected, but surely the NomCom could do better than to report as their first choice a person who cannot complete a single term.

As it turns out, this apparently won't be an issue after all.

On 5/19/2024 at 9:14 AM, Josh Martin said:

[W]e only have 6 board members to vote (5 is a quorum). 3/4 of 6 is 4.5, so how does one tally that?

Well, it seems to me you don't tally that.  The rule says "the entire board" which currently comprises 8 members.  Is there some bylaws language regarding recusals which would suggest that they not be counted as part of the "entire board"?

On 5/19/2024 at 10:47 AM, Guest Malcolm said:

Bylaws are silent on the topic of term of office.

That seems unlikely.   Do people serve forever?

Let's put it another way: What do the bylaws say about how frequently elections for a given office occur?

On 5/19/2024 at 1:03 AM, Simranjot said:

About if majority of members are 18 then person can serve should be mentioned in regulations. However it is not mentioned there. So that is against regulations. There are other students who followed rules. It is unfair for them. If breach is allowed once students will demand same thing next year. Then what?

It is mentioned in the bylaws.  The fact that it is not (yet) mentioned in regulations indicates that regulations should be drafted.  It does not disqualify anyone.  

If the regulations say nothing about wearing tinfoil hats, yet someone wears a tinfoil hat, how is that against regulations?

Since there is no breach, or even if there were, what students might "demand" in the future is of no parliamentary weight.

On 5/15/2024 at 4:19 PM, Roz said:

We don't have any positions that have more than 1 candidate running unless someone writes somebody in during the voting, so as long as we reach quorum then each person fills the spot they ran for?

Presuming this is a written ballot, then yes, as long as a candidate receives at least one vote,

On 5/18/2024 at 3:35 PM, Inquisitive Secretary said:

So, the board can fill a vacancy on its own without putting it to a vote of the membership?

Yes.  But bear in mind that a vacancy refers to an office that was filled, but was then vacated partway through the normal term of office.

When a term ends normally, it is then filled by an election, since it is not a mid-term vacancy.

It seems to me that a person who agrees to run is agreeing to serve the entire term, barring unforeseen circumstances.

If the candidate cannot commit to that, then the Nominating Committee should find someone else.  If they don't, the membership should instruct them to do so.

1.  They're your rules, so I assume they would apply.  RONR does not have such a rule.

2.  Mail in ballots are only permitted if your bylaws provide for them.  RONR has suggested methods, which do not include witnesses, but do include more than one teller, and the tellers presumably all observe one another.

3.  If a meeting does not have adequate notice, then RONR's procedure is that it cannot be held.  If it is, then any business conducted is null and void.

A chair and several members.

On 5/18/2024 at 6:56 PM, Inquisitive Secretary said:

But, what if 3 board members were recused from voting? Then it would be impossible to reach a 3/4 affirmative vote. How would that be handled? That could be the argument against requiring 3/4 of the ENTIRE board if not enough board members were permitted to vote.

Yes, it would be an argument in favor of amending the bylaws to remove that requirement, but as long as it's in there, it must be complied with.

On 5/17/2024 at 8:43 PM, J. J. said:

Why wouldn't be able to say the same thing about the vote total?

You mean you really are saying that the rules for Suspend the Rules are suspendible?

On 5/17/2024 at 4:05 PM, Guest Questioner said:

Also, just to nitpick: 

3.01 Membership is comprised of parents, legal guardians, and caregivers of students in any music program at the <Place> . Members are eligible to
hold positions on the General or Executive Board.

While we're nitpicking, "comprised of" is always incorrect.  To comprise means to be composed of, so the proper sentence should read:

3.01 Membership comprises parents, legal guardians....etc.

On 5/17/2024 at 7:35 PM, Atul Kapur said:

 

Are you sure? Wouldn't that person's election to a two-year term be equivalent to a motion "that conflicts with the corporate charter, constitution, or bylaws" and, therefore, out of order by RONR (12th ed.) 10:26(1)?

It's no worse an interpretation than a half dozen others.

This whole situation is a result of poorly drafted bylaws that instead of term limits has year limits.  It should be impossible for a term limit to run out mid term, but it is what it is, and if the bylaw says a member is ineligible to serve, but not ineligible to be elected, then I say adopt the least restrictive interpretation.

Fortunately it's not up to me, and the organization will have to interpret their own bylaws, incohesive as they are.

On 5/17/2024 at 8:33 AM, J. J. said:

As soon as you place a rule in the bylaws and say that it can be suspended, it creates a rule in the nature of a rule of order in the bylaws. 

No it doesn't.  The club tie rule says that it can be suspended.  This creates no new rule of order.  Any motion to suspend it is handled in the way that suspension of the rules normally occurs as laid out in RONR, and adopting the club tie rule adds nothing to that existing procedure.  If a threshold other than the standard for suspension is given, that supersedes the provisions in RONR but nothing else about the mechanics of holding the vote changes.

If you are trying to say that the rules in Suspend the Rules (§25) can be suspended, that is a limb out upon which I decline to follow you.