Gary Novosielski

If nobody wants the group to stay intact enough to volunteer to be president, maybe they don't want it as much as you think.

In any case, there is no way around the terms of office as set down in your bylaws, except by amending your bylaws.  But check the exact language for the terms of your officers.  Does it say a fixed time of n years, or is that followed by "and until their successors are elected".   Similarly, check to see when elections must be held.

If nobody will accept leadership positions, it may be time to pull up stakes and fold up the tent.

On 10/15/2021 at 10:48 AM, MCV said:

Thanks for the feedback. There are various reasons why the no confidence in the process/procedures is the preferred way to go. The academic senate of which I am a part doesn’t set policy on workplace safety. It might be possible to target individuals, but it is unclear (due to a lack of administrative transparency) who is ultimately responsible for what we have seen take place on campus. By expressing our opinion regarding the process (with a detailed explanation of the way it has failed) we leave it to those responsible to fix the problems listed.

 

Well, if the Parliamentarian is intent on giving you a hard time about "no confidence" votes, and since RONR does not mention them, what you definitely can do is to move a "sense of the Senate" resolution, which is really the same thing but doesn't have the baggage of a "confidence" vote.

You could simply move that it is the sense of the Senate that the workplace safety policies are deficient in the following ways.....

And if you want to get fancy, you can dress it up as a Resolution, with a preamble such as Whereas this is bad; and, Whereas that is bad; and, Whereas people could die, Therefore, be it Resolved by the Academic Senate that what ought to be done is.....

See RONR 12th ed. 10:13 et. seq.

Do you mean apply an amendment?   If so:

A motion that has been recommended by a committee is reported back to the committee's parent body for possible action.

At that point, the parent body may amend the motion however it wishes, may adopt the motion in as recommended by the committee, or as amended, or may reject the motion entirely.  It could also take other actions, such as postponing action, or even referring it to a different committee if appropriate.

In other words, committees report recommendations to the group that referred the matter to the committee.  The parent body is free to accept, reject, ignore, or amend the recommendation.

The Council can certainly vote to Rescind (also known as Repeal or Annul ) the ordinance.  It's not necessary to establish that there was incorrect testimony, it's simply that a legislative body that passes an ordinance has the right to rescind it.

See §35 for the rules on this motion, presuming the rules in RONR apply.   The motion usually requires either

• a 2/3 vote, or
• a majority vote if previous notice of the intent to make this motion was given, or
• a vote of a majority of the entire membership of the council,

any one of which will suffice.   In a meeting where the entire Council is present, the third form will often be the easiest to satisfy.

It should be noted that rescinding the Ordinance will not mean that the ordinance never existed.  It will have existed from the time it was passed until the time it was rescinded.

I think that if you organization is responsible for putting such policies in place, then a vote of no confidence does not really accomplish anything.  In particular it does not change any policies.

It seems to me that it would be more productive to move the adoption of a policy that you believe should be in place, or to move the creation of a committee to study the policies in which you have little confidence, with instructions to report back improvements to current policies or establishment of new ones, that would improve workplace safety.

Here is a relevant FAQ from this web site's FAQ page:

Quote

 

7.   What is a vote of no confidence?

The term “vote of no confidence” is not used or defined anywhere in RONR, and there is no mention of any motion for such a vote. However, this does not mean that an assembly cannot adopt a motion, if it wishes, expressing either its confidence or lack of confidence in any of its officers or subordinate boards or committees. Any such motion would simply be a main motion, and would have no effect other than to express the assembly’s views concerning the matter. A vote of “no confidence” does not—as it would in the British Parliament—remove an officer from office.

 

On 10/14/2021 at 12:02 PM, Guest Michael said:

Can a North Carolina elected School Board member vote Present on a motion, instead of Nay or Aye?

Answering "Present" is essentially the same as abstaining.  It does not count as either a Aye or Nay; in fact it is not considered a vote cast at all.

If the rules in RONR apply, any member has the right to abstain on a vote.

On 10/11/2021 at 11:08 PM, Guest sec-li said:

2 of the 3 nominees put forward are of great commitment and character to the group, the 3rd is someone who the majority feels is overwhelmingly under-qualified and not fit to serve.

Well, that is why elections are held.  Those who are not fit to serve would, presumably, receive fewer than a majority of the votes cast, which is the number necessary to elect.

No, someone can't just say that debate is limited.  And a Parliamentarian worthy of the title should know that.

Do you have any rules in place that say your debate is normally limited?  If not, RONR provides a ten-minute limit per speech, and a maximum of two speeches on a single question--the second only after everyone has spoken once who wishes to.

A change to the rule would be done by a motion to Limit or Extend Limits of Debate [RONR §15] which requires a two-thirds vote.

On 10/6/2021 at 8:21 PM, Guest Carrie said:

From what I am reading it states that if there is a conflict in the bylaws Roberts Rules supersedes the bylaws. 

But then if you refer to Robert's Rules, it says that if there is a conflict, the bylaws supersede Robert's Rules, so I suspect an endless loop would be created, and smoke would pour out of somewhere. 🙂

On 10/6/2021 at 2:02 PM, Guest Harv said:

Our members elect the Board as a group.    "At the first meeting after the general election, the old Board and the newly elected BoarTd shall meet to transfer responsibilities.  The new Board shall elect from its members, upon a proper motion, the following:

President and Chair                Vice President                  Secretary              Treasurer                   Librarian                    Equipment Manager"

Does using "upon a proper motion" mean that there needs to be a second for each nomination?  If it does, and there is no second then the nomination fails.  Is that correct?

• The term "upon a proper motion" has no meaning at all.  Anything a board decides must be by a "proper" motion.
• Seconds are not required for nominations.
• Once the election is completed the "newly elected board" is referred to as "The board".  The old board is a group of individuals who are former members of the board.  So I would interpret the joint meeting requirement as a meeting of The board, to which the members of the former board are invited as guests.  If there are any motions to be made or votes to be held, only members of The board should be moving things or voting on them.

On 10/6/2021 at 12:42 PM, Atul Kapur said:

I have seen the term "casting vote" defined in statute as the chair having a second vote in the case of a tie. Your use of the term suggests that such a statute applies to your organization.

This is a very different approach than RONR's, which Mr. Katz has stated above.

Oh jeez.

On 10/6/2021 at 12:11 PM, Guest Lily said:

Hello everyone,

Question on the duties of the Chair in regards to voting:

What is the difference in the following: The Chair shall have a deliberate and casting vote.

Does this mean the Chair can have a deliberate vote on a matter or is the Chair only allowed to cast their vote in a tie.

That makes no sense to me at all.  Anyone?

On 10/6/2021 at 10:50 AM, Guest Carrie said:

PTA President term ended June 30th. PTA was dormant due to Covid restrictions and was not able to create a nominating committee or run elections as stated in Bylaws which take place in March of every year. Bylaws state "Officers shall assume their official duties following the close of the fiscal year and shall serve for a term (2) two year/s or until their successors are elected. The bylaws also state "A vacancy occurring in the office of president shall be filled for the remainder of the unexpired term by the vice president."  Question. Does the President continue until an election takes place or does the Vice President take over?  Bylaws seem to be conflicting.  In the bylaws it does state that Roberts Rules of Order supersede the bylaws when there is conflict.

I've seen plenty of  PTA bylaws, and I think you've got that supersede thing backwards.

On 10/6/2021 at 6:44 PM, Guest Karen said:

I agree.  I think the Membership committee should just state that after the assessment they do not recommend that the chapter conduct new member induction.  No motion is needed for that.   However the chapter makes the decision by secret vote.  So what statement should be made to vote upon?

Perhaps..."Shall the chapter conduct a new member induction?"  But provide another statement that the Membership committee does not recommend the intake of new members in this program year.

I think that's what I said in the first reply.  But it was so long ago.

On 10/5/2021 at 5:25 PM, R.S.M said:

Where is this rule in 12th edition? Whether it states you can or cannot.

There is no rule stating that you can breathe during meetings.  Still, it is a commonly accepted practice.

On 10/6/2021 at 1:45 AM, Guest Karen said:

My organization needs to decide whether or not to take in new members this program year.  The Membership committee did an assessment and wants to make their recommendation a motion to "NOT" conduct an induction of new members this program year.  How do we word the motion such that it is not an ambiguous negative statement of what we don't want to do?  A motion is necessary to conduct the vote.

 

The motion would be "to conduct an induction of new members this program year."

And recommend a No vote on the motion.

On 10/2/2021 at 3:46 PM, Guest epascarella@att.net said:

Is it a common rule that the president of the organization only votes in case of a tie?

It is annoyingly common.  If you simply avoid putting in any rule on this subject, the rules in RONR will apply, which say that the president normally does not exercise the right to vote except when:

• The vote is by ballot, or
• The single vote of the president could affect the outcome of the vote (which could just as easily be to create a tie, defeating the motion, as to break a tie, adopting it, or
• The group is meeting under Small Board Rules, intended for use in committees and boards of no more than about a dozen members.

See FAQ #1 

On 10/2/2021 at 4:42 PM, PAPS said:

Since COVID restrictions, we have been trying to update our By-laws to adopt ZOOM as our meeting platform especially since we are spread across 3 states.

I would recommend not specifying a particular platform by name in the bylaws, but rather use more generic terms, and specify the characteristics required for a platform that can be used for electronic meetings.  (Which Zoom would presumably meet.)   If for some reason Zoom is sold off or becomes unavailable, you are locked in to a situation that you cannot easily change.

On 10/2/2021 at 1:11 PM, PAPS said:

Hi, no this is not for an in-person meeting.
I am in the process of updating our By-laws via postal mail (which is presently allowed in our Bylaws) for Electronic Meetings. The votes will return by end of this month which I expect will pass. With our hobby club, it's been difficult to get members out of the mode of being so casual.
So for our November meeting, I wanted to know how to best announce the voting for the candidates via ZOOM. I have no problems with announcing each candidate. The idea for 'lumping' them together was more for efficiency since there are no opposing candidates.
Thanks,
Amy

Well, you won't know for certain that there are no opposing candidates until you call for further nominations from the floor at the November meeting.

On 10/3/2021 at 5:46 AM, Atul Kapur said:

 

 

I am not sure whether 6 hours and 47 minutes is stretching the definition of "virtually" or "simultaneous"

That is not how it appeared to me when I looked.  But it could have been the hard cider talking.  In any case, it is apparent that we agreed, so file it under: No Harm No Foul.  🥴

On 10/4/2021 at 11:02 AM, Guest Vincent said:

I am the president of a non profit club. My chair has been challenged by a member. What's the next step? Does the challenge first write and official letter to the board who will have a discussion without me if they support me or the Challenger or it goes into an election immediately?

RONR has no provisions for "challenging the chair", except under the chapter (XX) on discipline.  If you have rules in your bylaws that allow this procedure, then follow those rules.  Otherwise follow the rules in Chapter XX, specifically §62. REMOVAL FROM OFFICE AND OTHER REMEDIES FOR DERELICTION OF DUTY IN OFFICE OR MISCONDUCT.

And in nearly all cases, the removal of a president would not cause an election, but rather the filling of the vacancy in the office of vice president, which would result from the former vice president's automatic and immediate succession to the office of president.

It would be highly unusual for a letter from a single member to create such drama, and it would be similarly unusual for the board, rather than the membership, to be authorized to remove the president.  Which group, the board or the membership, elects the president in the first place?

On 10/4/2021 at 2:29 PM, Guest Andrew said:

We would approve the current and backlogged minutes, then motion to allow the executive board to approve in the future once we get a quorum. Thank you

Almost.  You would approve the backlogged minutes in chronological order beginning with the oldest and ending with the current draft minutes.  You could then move to authorize the board or a committee to approve the minutes of the current meeting.

If this proposal is a Revision of the bylaws, i.e., adopting a new set of bylaws to replace the old set in its entirety, then amendments are in order for any portion of the replacement bylaws before adoption.

If the proposal is a series of specific amendments to the existing bylaws, then any of them are subject to further amendment before adoption, providing that the further amendment does not exceed the scope of the notice of the changes that was presumably given to all members.

It may not be necessary to move to pull something off the block, since it's not clear how they came to be a part of a block in the first place.  But if it appears necessary, the motion to Divide the Question (§27) may be used.  

On 10/4/2021 at 6:49 PM, Guest Dolores Gillis said:

Our by laws allow for the immediate past president to

be a member of the board without election. Does this allow for them to hold an office on the board?

Unless otherwise restricted by the bylaws, I don't think this would prevent an IPP from being elected to some other office, with the exception of President, of course, which would create an amusing logical paradox.

Another way to accomplish a delay in the consideration of this motion, without having to bring it up and postpone it at each meeting, would be to Refer it to a committee of one or two people with instructions to report it back in January of 2022, with comments, if any.