Gary Novosielski

I'm not sure what the charge of your election committee is. RONR doesn't ever require one. RONR suggests using a Nominating Committee to solicit candidates and report them to the assembly, but after that, the assembly itself conducts the election. And if candidates are running unopposed (and the bylaws do not require a ballot vote) the chair may declare them elected by acclamation.

It is a little weird, but I don't think it can cause much trouble in practice. Now if they had tried to collect fees for an ordinance that didn't exist, that's definitely a problem.

I know that was the intent, but I think it could be argued that it would constitute "a part of his speech", i.e., the first part. I've seen thinner arguments than that eat up a half hour of a meeting. 😜

It is incorrect that the chair only votes in the event of a tie. Don't confuse the rules in RONR with the rules in the US Senate. On a ballot vote, the chair votes along with everyone else. On any other type of vote, the chair would not vote unless that one vote would affect the outcome: It could be to break a tie and pass the motion, or to create a tie and defeat the motion. It could be to achieve a 2/3 vote or to deny a 2/3 vote. And in any other case where one vote would matter, the chair may vote freely. So effectively even though the chair normally does not vote, it's only when one vote would not have changed the outcome anyway.

Wouldn't that second example make it impossible ever to move the Previous Question?

The right to attend a meeting does not automatically grant the right to a copy of the minutes.

Yes, that's why I suggested it might not be well-taken. If the illegality were other than procedural it would not be, but at least it would still get in the minutes without needing a second or a majority agreement.

I concur with Mr. Kapur, and if all efforts fail, a Point of Order can be raised, either that the dissent must be recorded, or that the main motion violates the bylaws, or violates the law. Even if the point is ruled not well taken, and even if that ruling sustained on Appeal, the Point of Order would be recorded in the minutes and provide evidence of your dissent.

In which case a majority vote should settle the question. RONR would be fine with it either way.

Well, the Senate rules regarding quorum are more "creative" than RONR. The most common use of a quorum call there is simply to waste time. A member suggests the absence of a quorum and the clerk calls the roll at a pace that makes a snail look positively fleet of foot. And when enough time has been wasted someone can effectively say "never mind" and the count stops. Apparently the concept of a recess has not yet reached west of the rotunda. Under RONR if a point of order is raised that there appears to be less than a quorum present, the determination would be done as if the answer mattered, and would not be halted because the person raising the point no longer cares.

Good. That's what I was going for.

Assuming that you mean they went back and approved the original motion as amended, then yes.

Thank you. For a moment there I was dealing with cognitive dissonance.

The minutes would record the votes of members by name if a Roll Call vote is used. Roll call votes are typically used when the voting members are responsible to a constituency. If roll call votes are not the usual method of voting, then to use that method would require adopting a motion. A majority vote is required to order a roll call unless the bylaws specify some lower threshold. Further reading: RONR (12th ed.) §45:45-54

LOL that's cute.

If the rules in RONR apply: The recording would be considered as part of the Secretary's notes and members would not automatically have a right to them. However there is no rule preventing making the recording available to members. Retaining the recordings is optional and up to your organization to decide. The minutes (once approved) are the official record. RONR is not silent on this point. See §48:6

Well, except for §48:6.

Abstentions are not called for, not counted, and are not votes.

Yes, and then when things go wrong, the finger pointing starts. Responsibility shared is responsibility diluted.

My strongly held belief is that you would be far better off deleting all reference to Co-<anything> in your bylaws. It is nothing but trouble, as you're beginning to find out.

They are not "his" votes. The votes belong to the members who cast them. If he withdraws after a ballot has been counted, and nobody (else) received a majority, another vote will be required. The withdrawing person may endorse another candidate, but everyone is still free to vote however they wish.

Yes, your instincts are correct. Go to https://robertsrules.com/official-interpretations/ and scroll to OI 2006-13, which covers this exact situation. (to reveal the answer, you must click on that number--yeah, I know...)

Ah, but it is. At least it breaks no law in RONR. It's common that some organizations will open nominations at a regular meeting a month in advance of the election, and then hold the election at the next meeting. But there's no rule against reopening nominations at the election meeting to add additional nominees from the floor. If the organization wishes, nominations could theoretically be open for several months. RONR does not have limitations on when or how long nominations can be open. Indeed it does not even require nominations at all. You may find it suggestive to note that closing nominations requires a 2/3 vote, while (re)opening them requires only a majority. __________ [Josh did it again.]

When a motion from a committee is made by the reporting member of that committee, the motion need not be seconded. But when the moderator opens debate the discussion is on that motion. The first person recognized (usually the mover) cannot simply ignore the motion propose a new one (not an amendment of the first one) leaving the first in limbo. There is a procedure where a member in debate can offer a "substitute" for the pending motion, but that is a form of amendment, and must follow the rules for amendments, including the need to be seconded. There are also some quite involved rules regarding how substitutes are debated and decided. Ultimately, if the amendment in the nature of a substitute is not agreed to, the question resumes on the original motion, which is still very much alive. In either case, a final vote is required to adopt whatever the resulting language is. But while the amendment was being discussed, it would be in order to postpone it to the next meeting. What gets postponed is both the original motion, and the amendment attached to it which has not yet been decided. And that combination in that same condition is what would be taken up at the next meeting. Now, if that's not what happened, please let us know so that we can attempt to understand how to deal with it. __________ Edited to add: Mr. Martin and I were typing at the same time, and he clearly types faster. At least we didn't give conflicting opinions. 😊

I'm quite familiar with the term, but confused by the inconsistent use. The sequence of events seemed to suggest that after selecting a mayor, they then proceed to elect an interim mayor. But I appreciate the concern.