Gary Novosielski

On 4/19/2024 at 5:52 PM, J. J. said:

This does provide a way to interrupt a speaker, but not by yelling something out. 

But that is the way that it is done in an in-person meeting.  Without that it is not a deliberative assembly.

On 4/19/2024 at 2:57 PM, Drake Savory said:

If a member has a pecuniary (financial) interest in the motion, they should refrain from voting.

Presuming that this interest applies to him alone.  If it is in common with other members, there is no problem

On 4/19/2024 at 1:37 PM, J. J. said:

Are you suggesting that members should be permitted to speak without recognition, as that seems to be the only way to permit "simultaneous aural communication," at all times. 

Of course.  Otherwise how could a motion that is permitted to interrupt someone speaking be able to interrupt someone speaking.  The fact that members can speak without being recognized is essential to raising a point of order.  But they are not "permitted" to speak, except as the rules of order provide.

No, he didn't call a meeting.  He said he is going to call a meeting.  When he calls it, he must say the time and place.

On 4/19/2024 at 12:46 PM, Guest Follow-up... said:

Thanks... As a follow-up, if one of the individuals changes from "abstain" to "no".... 5 "yes" is still greater that 3 "no" and of the 8 votes cast, 5 yes is more than half. Correct? 

Yes, 5 is greater than 3.  So the motion carries.

Vote changing is not permitted once the result is announced.

On 4/19/2024 at 9:33 AM, Rob Elsman said:

I am of the opinion that the bylaw is incomprehensible and uninterpretable.

It is no more incomprehensible than to say that a motion is amendable but not debatable.  The meaning is clear and concise.  A rule may be amended, but it may not be suspended.  There are many rules in most any set of bylaws that fall into this category.  

Yes.  For a majority vote, all that is necessary is for the Yes votes to be strictly more numerous than the No votes.  Anything less, including tie votes, rejects the motion.

It does not make any difference how many people abstain.  Abstentions should not be called for, and should not be counted, except during roll-call votes.  Anyone who does not vote has abstained. But on an ordinary majority vote, abstentions cannot affect the outcome.  They are not votes at all.

On 4/18/2024 at 11:40 PM, Jay M said:

In this case Board is insisting to see minutes because the next general body takes place after a long time. who appointa the committe to  review the general body minutes? Board or general body ?Usully annual gb takes place once in year so waiting for a year is okay? 

 

 

The general body is in charge of its own minutes.  It should appoint a committee authorized to approve its minutes, or it may assign this task to the board.

Waiting a year is not okay.

See RONR (12th ed.) 48:12, which says:

Exceptions to the rule that minutes are approved at the next regular meeting (or at the next meeting within the session) arise when the next meeting will not be held within a quarterly time interval, when the term of a specified portion of the membership will expire before the start of the next meeting, or when, as at the final meeting of a convention, the assembly will be dissolved at the close of the present meeting. In any of these cases, minutes that have not been approved previously should be approved before final adjournment, or the assembly should authorize the executive board or a special committee to approve the minutes. The fact that the minutes are not read for approval at the next meeting does not prevent a member from having a relevant excerpt read for information; nor does it prevent the assembly in such a case from making additional corrections, treating the minutes as having been previously approved (see 48:15)

The minutes should be presented to the general membership for approval of their own minutes.

But this should not have been allowed to go 7 months without approval.  On what grounds are "some" board members insisting that the minutes be presented to the board?  

When the general membership will not be meeting on less than a quarterly interval, it should not simply fail to approve the minutes, or let them languish for many nonths.  It should make arrangement to have its minutes approved in a timely manner.  It can do this by appointing a committee to review and approve the minutes, it could also assign this approval process to the board, but the board can't insist on it.

On 4/18/2024 at 3:05 PM, Guest Ikonoblast said:

In our instance, the board voted against a membership committee recommendation to change a provision in the bylaws. At the membership meeting, all board members voted as members to support their position again. This seems wrong. Please tell me why.

This seems to be tacked on to a ten-month-old thread.  Please ask a complete question as a new topic.

On 4/18/2024 at 10:05 AM, Guest E-Board said:

Can a motion to frivolously spend an organization's funds be ruled out of order for the reason of financial responsibility?

For example if a member rises to make a motion that everyone present gets $1000 for attending the meeting? Can that be ruled out of order because itis not financially responsible for the organization?

No, that's not sufficient reason to rule the motion out of order.

Yes.  The chair must call for additional nominations after hearing the Nominating Committee report.  I think the board erred by appointing itself as a nominating committee but that's another question.

There is no "vote" on hearing the report.  The report must be received, and there is no vote on accepting it.

[RONR (12th ed.) 46:6]

Unless the bylaws or a special rule of order provides otherwise, the chair must call for further nominations at the session at which the election is held even if nominations were called for at a previous session. A member need not be recognized by the chair to make a nomination unless he or she wishes to speak in debate on it at the same time (see 46:27–29)

On 4/17/2024 at 4:19 PM, Dan Honemann said:

And I am saying, based solely upon what has been posted, the answer is no.

I agree that a full trial is not required.  I would, however, say that two-thirds of those present and voting would be sufficient, so long as a quorum of two-thirds of the members were present.

For cause is whatever the membership deems to be a serious enough offense to vote for removal.

I never met George, but of course I will miss his knowing and wise voice here, as will we all.

On 4/17/2024 at 11:11 AM, Guest Juanita said:

We have a board member who is up for reelection to the board. Our board year runs May 1st through April 30th. He initially agreed to be reelected. The Nominating Committee met and voted to recommend to the board this person to be reelected. Voting will take place on Thursday. We received an email yesterday that he is resigning from the board effective April 31st.

What is the simplest way for us to handle this situation. Go ahead and reelection him, then under new business state that he is resigning as of April 30th. We just need a simple, yet legal way to handle this situation. Our by-laws do not address a situation such as this.

Thank you for your assistance.

There's no need to resign from a term that is coming to its natural end.  He can simply decline reëlection.

On 4/17/2024 at 9:29 PM, Joshua Katz said:

Well I guess that explains it. Assuming, of course, that nothing the General wrote has ever changed.

No, but it only applies to those things that have not.

On 4/18/2024 at 7:48 AM, Dan Honemann said:

If a bylaw in the nature of a rule of order says that it cannot be suspended, it cannot be suspended.

Ah, sanity!

On 4/17/2024 at 9:42 AM, Guest Andy E said:

Michigan Libertarians are a creative bunch, if nothing else.

At our latest board meeting, the Chair came up with this new process for Zoom meetings:

• Chair  notes that meeting participants will be muted by default, with hand raises noting a desire to speak, and the “X/no” or “Ta-da” emoji noting a desire to make an interrupting motion

• Note - Chair then clarified that an additional emoji could be used to second a motion.

However, RONR 9:31 states the following:

" ........ A group that holds such
alternative meetings does not lose its character as a
deliberative assembly (see 1:1) so long as the meetings
provide, at a minimum, conditions of opportunity for
simultaneous aural communication among all participating
members equivalent to those of meetings held in one room or
area. Under such conditions, an electronic meeting that is
properly authorized in the bylaws is treated as though it were a
meeting at which all the members who are participating are
actually present."

So would having all board members muted by default be a violation of this section of RONR ?

Thanks,
Andy Evans

 

Well, let's back up to the point where the chair just made these rules up out of thin air.  If the members never approved them, they're not in effect.

And unless Zoom meetings are provided for in your bylaws, they're not permitted.

Standard practice is to record the name of the mover, not the seconder.

For a voice vote, only the result is recorded.

For a counted vote, the counts of yeas and nays is recorded.

For  a roll-call vote, the response of each person is recorded by name.

It is absurd to say that a bylaws provision that states it cannot be suspended can be suspended.

It would take an amendment to strike that sentence, after which other suspendible rules in the nature of rules of order would operate normallyu.

On 4/15/2024 at 5:16 PM, Josh Martin said:

Technically, no, but it seems to me the same purpose could be accomplished by appointing some or all of the board members as members of the nominating committee.

Alternatively, a board member could simply nominate each of these persons from the floor.

Do your bylaws provide that the President appoints the nominating committee? RONR recommends against this.

If there's no deadline for the appointment of the nominating committee, couldn't the President just appoint the board members to the Nominating Committee? And then they'll make the nominations again?

I suppose so, but my own recommendation would still be to take nominations from the floor.  The process already has more than the requisite number of board fingerprints all over it.

And I guess it was my sense that some deadline had been crossed, prompting the question.

No it is not.  The board does not have the authority to nominate candidates.  Add to this the fact that a Nominating Committee normally does not report to the Board, but reports directly to the Membership.  Normally the chair should have no role in appointing the committee, but if your bylaws require it, then the failure of the chair to perform this duty in a timely manner may be a subject of discipline at the appropriate time.

Until then, nominations from the floor should be taken. The "slate" presented by the Board should be ignored by the membership.

At the risk of appearing to speak for Mr. Martin, I suspect the tentativeness arises out of the fact that a motion to Ratify is not adopted until it is adopted, and that is never a certainty until the last vote is counted, and the result announced by the chair.

RONR has no advice on this situation.  You will need to search your local documents for an answer.  Whether your County Committee bylaws apply in the absence of District Committee bylaws, or whether you will need to adopt your own bylaws might be stated in the County Committee bylaws.

Agreeing with @Joshua Katz, a rule which states who "presides at all meetings" is in the nature of a rule of order and suspendible by a two thirds vote. 

62:13
Any one motion to Suspend the Rules that might limit the authority or duties of the presiding officer during a meeting can remain in effect, at most, for one session. (See 8:12, 8:16.) Therefore, in order to prevent the regular presiding officer from presiding during subsequent sessions, the motion to Suspend the Rules would have to be renewed and separately adopted at each of the sessions. Moreover, since Suspend the Rules applies only when “an assembly wishes to do something during a meeting that it cannot do without violating one or more of its regular rules” (25:1, emphasis added), the motion cannot be used to remove from the presiding officer (even temporarily) any administrative duties—those related to the role of an executive officer that are distinct from the function of presiding over the assembly at its meetings. (Cf. 47:20.)