Gary Novosielski

On 6/10/2021 at 11:35 PM, Maureen WM said:

Hi again,

I have another scenario:

At a virtual meeting, a person (John) was nominated from the floor to serve as a candidate i.e. their name would have been on the ballot. John may or may not have heard this nomination from the floor at the time and there was not action taken to confirm John's willingness at the time. However, there was a follow up email to this individual, and no reply from John. 

The vacancy remained on the ballot and write ins were required.

The results from the election indicated that John received votes as a write in candidate and received enough votes to win.

Is this person an eligible candidate? 

Thanks for your interpretation.

I don't understand why a "vacancy" remained on the ballot.  It sounded as though John was nominated.  So I see no reason why he did not appear on the ballot.

On 6/11/2021 at 12:42 PM, Guest Puzzling said:

We just wait till a reply of one of the authors 🙇‍♀️ 

thanks

Umm, we already got that, two posts above yours.

Yes, of course.

But be careful what you wish for.  Do you have a well-defined meaning of the word Hybrid?  Does it require that there be members who are not physically present?  What happens if no one signs on?  Is the meeting valid?  How do you determine a quorum?  How do people seek recognition?  Can people interrupt a speaker when this is permitted by RONR?  

I could go on, but you get the point.  Rules have to be written with care. 

1. No.  If your paraphrase of the bylaws is correct, this is prohibited.
2. No.  The bylaws cannot be "waived" just because they have become inconvenient.
3. Yes.  Points of order can be raised now, because the breach is of a continuing nature.

1 minute ago, Atul Kapur said:

I didn't say that. I said, quoting and citing RONR, that if they had the 2/3 support they could follow the strategy in 12:105 of ordering a vote on the motion without filling the blank. That saves time.

And, given the first sentence of 12:105, how do you suggest that the opponents force a vote on the motion before the blank is filled? Other than by ordering the previous question?

Okay, that's clear to me now.   

On 6/7/2021 at 1:13 PM, Guest Taylor said:

Thank you. Yes, the procedures are spelled out. Someone mentioned it was "unlawful" to take away a right after the member served their punishment (as in double jeopardy). That's not the case for a misdemeanor or felon, but our infractions are far from criminal. 

That member can certainly use analogies like this as an argument against the provision during debate on the amendment, but can't unilaterally torpedo the assembly's right to adopt it, as long as the follow the rules for amendments.

On 6/8/2021 at 5:54 PM, Guest Janis Arnold said:

Can someone tell me whether a resolution (happens to be about breach of the code of conduct) needs to be distributed along with the notice of a special meeting?  If not, can it just be introduced at the special meeting?

The notice of the special meeting must contain a clear and specific description of the subject matter of any business to be brought up at the meeting.

While it is not necessary to include the exact language as it will be moved, having the exact motion would appear to satisfy the requirement above.

I'm not sure why you believe that opponents of the motion would need 2/3 support to defeat it.

They would need 2/3 if they decided to move the Previous Question on the motion, but that would not guarantee its defeat, and if it passed, the blank would still need to be filled.

But the opponents of the motion need only vote the question down like any other motion, whether the blank has been filled yet or not.

On 6/8/2021 at 9:43 AM, J. J. said:

It is no longer inquorate, once ratification occurs.  It would only be an inquorate meeting until that ratification happens.

I will concede, readily, that until ratification, a point of order  will be legitimate. 

And as long as it remains an inquorate meeting, the ratification cannot happen.  So, the ratification cannot happen until after it has already happened.  There is something very 22-ish about that catch.

7 hours ago, Weldon Merritt said:

"Never" is perhaps too strong a word. What RONR says is, "Although in organizing a new society it may be feasible for the chair to appoint the nominating committee, in an organized society the president should not appoint this committee or be a member of it—ex officio or otherwise." RONR 46:10. But it's "should not," not "may not." (But it's a pretty strong "should not," IMO.)

Is should never different from should not?

36 minutes ago, Guest Puzzling said:

The following  motion was made 

" To donate <blank> to charity. XYZ" 

Some members are against donating to XYZ in the first place some want to set the blank at a fixed amount.

Is the first thing after the motion is stated by the chair to ask for suggested  amounts to fill in the blank ,

Or

Is the first thing to debate and decide if the meeting should donate to charity XYZ?

Once the blank is filled, the motion itself must still be voted on.  So people who do not want to donate anything do not have to try to fill the blank with $0.00. In fact that would not be in order. They can simply vote No on the motion, regardless of what value ends up in the blank.

See §12:94, which reads in part:

Quote

The vote that fills a blank does not decide the question that contained the blank. As soon as the blank has been filled, the chair states the question on the adoption of the completed motion, which remains pending.

On 6/7/2021 at 7:24 AM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Yes, as the man said, "words matter."  🙂

Early on in this thread, you indicated that holding both the office of president and vice president would be "borderline absurd", and Mr. Merritt calls it "illogical". I don't think these terms are strong enough because, even if there is no express prohibition in the bylaws against holding more than one office, the bylaws very often (and probably most often) do prohibit any member from holding both the office of President and Vice-President. No person is eligible to serve in two offices if the bylaws make it literally impossible for him to perform the duties of both offices.

Oh, I'd be happy to drop the word "borderline".  I only used it because I had a (possibly false) memory of being corrected by somebody when I said it was not allowed.   

While many bylaws (including the sample in RONR) do prohibit holding multiple offices, there are a fair number that do not, and RONR takes pains to point out the proper way to elect people to multiple offices if the bylaws don't prohibit it.  But president/vice-president, while it seems like an obvious error, could benefit from a more strenuous denunciation in the text.

On 5/25/2021 at 9:05 AM, David R Homan said:

The biggest drawback to a Kindle version is that it must be read on a Kindle.  Not everyone owns or wants one.  A RONR 12th on a thumb drive would be perfect.  Or a Sim card maybe, and SD card, or a download from the company.  Kindle is not a good workable answer IMLO.

I'm reading my Kindle versions on my Windows laptop.

11 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

As for a "call to order", I think you have in mind the footnote on page 23.  There is nothing at all wrong with including "adjournment" in an agenda. 

Yes, thanks, found it at [3:16(1)n3].  I was searching in the agenda rules, and finding no joy. 🙂

5 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

That portion of Article IV, Section 4, of the sample bylaws has nothing to do with it. It's the portion that I took out that does.  🙂 

Ah, I missed the word only, on first reading.

4 hours ago, Guest Parliamentarian said:

In the past if a ballot vote was called for it had to be done.

 

Is that rule still in the updated bylaws?              

 

Do you mean in the updated version (12th ed.) of RONR?  if so it is not still in there, because it was not in there in past editions.  If your bylaws have such a rule, then it still applies unless your bylaws have been updated to remove it.

But if your bylaws are silent on the matter, RONR says [§30] that this would require an incidental motion related to methods of voting.  You need to be recognized and then say:

I move that the vote be taken by ballot.

Such motions require a second, are not debatable, are amendable, and require a majority vote.  

However there is something called a Division of the Assembly which can be demanded by one member [See §29]. this is done while the result is being announced, if a member doubts the results of a voice vote or a show of hands.  The member simply says:

Division! [or] I doubt the result of the vote!

The chair retakes the vote, but by a rising vote or perhaps a counted rising vote, and not automatically by ballot.

2 minutes ago, user said:

Assuming the bylaws do not prohibit it, is there anything in Robert's Rules of Order that prohibit a member from running for and being elected to more than one officer position?

Thank you!

No there is no such prohibition, but certain combinations are borderline absurd, like holding both president and vice president offices.

However, there is a rule that if multiple offices are voted on a single ballot, such that members will not know the outcome for each office before voting on the next, then a member cannot be elected to more than one office per ballot, and  a member who gets a majority for more than one office must choose one.  Another election is then held for the office(s) that were declined.  The member may then be elected to additional offices on those additional ballots.

None of these restrictions are necessary if separate elections are held for each office, so that members know the results before voting on the next office. [46:31(1)]

On 5/31/2021 at 5:48 PM, Al Dunbar said:

Thanks much.

I also found that that is where it states the president should definitely not appoint the nominating committee or be a member of it.

 I submitted a new topic asking for the rationale for this restriction. Hoping you will answer either here or there....

It is not typically the case that the rationale for all the rules is spelled out in RONR, though it sometimes is.

One method for determining why a given rule is a good idea is to amend the bylaws to eliminate that rule and then watch to see what disasters occur as a result.  It shouldn't take long.  Even so I can't in good conscience recommend this method.

On 5/30/2021 at 5:52 PM, Richard Brown said:

Isn't that a different question from whether new business can be prohibited?  For example, consider these two scenarios when the association has a rule requiring an agenda: 

First, assume the last item on the agenda is "Motion to paint the clubhouse".  Once that item is disposed of, wouldn't a member be entitled to obtain the floor and introduce an item of new business provided he can do so before the meeting is adjourned?  

In contrast, if the agenda lists "Motion to paint the clubhouse" as the next to last item and there is another item titled "adjourn" listed after the clubhouse motion, would the introduction of new business then be properly prohibited? 

 

It has been my understanding that "Call to Order" and "Adjourn" entries are not included in the agenda.  I thought I recalled a specific rule to that effect, but I can't find it now.

N/A

If it is important to note the identities of the president and secretary in the first paragraph, the it stands to reason that future archeologists unearthing the minutes could assume that these persons held those roles for the entire meeting unless otherwise noted.

Assuming that rule in RONR is there for a reason, failing to note changes when they occur would seem to render the rule absurd.

On 6/1/2021 at 8:18 AM, Guest Dana Reilly said:

When taking minutes, should guests be listed as attendees if they are not presenting?

If the rules in RONR apply, there is no requirement to list the names of any attendees, whether members or guests, in the minutes.  The only necessary notations are who was presiding and who was recording.

RONR has no mention of "emergency" meetings, but since they are clearly not Regular meetings, we can assume that the rules for Special meetings would apply.  The rules for special meetings must be in your bylaws, or such meetings don't exist.

If the May 20th meeting was called without any description of the business to be considered at that meeting, then there was no business that would be in order to bring before the meeting.  Any motions apparently adopted would be null and void, and any actions taken based on those improper decisions would be unauthorized, unless subsequently ratified by the assembly.  The bylaws, in the section authorizing special meetings, should state the number of days notice required.

On 5/31/2021 at 10:07 AM, Guest GUEST Phil said:

Honest question,

 

Funds were actually disbursed in 2019 and 2020, unauthorized at the time

That was how I read it as well, and I recommend to you Mr. Honemann's  and Mr. Brown's suggested reading.

It appears that the motion was adopted by a vote of 3-0.  The three abstentions would not affect the outcome.