Gary Novosielski
-
Posts
16,133 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Downloads
Articles
Everything posted by Gary Novosielski
-
If I understand the question, you're saying that the board is presenting recommendations to the full membership. If they were reporting decisions, then I question why a vote would be taken. If the report contained recommendations that would result in a motion in the membership meeting which is then debated and voted upon. So I'm not clear whether you're asking about the vote tally in the board meeting that resulted in this matter being reported to the membership, or whether you're asking about the vote tally in the membership meeting on whether to adopting or reject the recommendations in the report. If you're referring to the former, no, the report to the membership need not include any vote tally. The decisions in a board meeting by a majority of those present and voting are the decisions of the board, whether by one vote or by unanimous agreement. The report is the report of the board, not a segment of the board. It's entirely likely that the vote of the board to approve the report was not even "tallied" in the first place. If you're referring to the latter, then the vote tally in the membership meeting will be recorded in the minutes if there was, in fact, a formally counted vote taken. Otherwise no. A member can request a counted vote if the outcome of a voice vote is questionable. Refer to paragraphs 30:4 ff. for information on the various methods of voting. If it should be the case that the vote in the board meeting was a counted vote, and recorded in the board minutes, then the membership by a two-thirds vote (not the demand of a single member) may require the board to produce the minutes of the meeting and read them to the membership. That's the best you can do.
-
If electronic meetings are not authorized in your bylaws, or required by administrative regulations applying to your type of society, then they are prohibited by RONR.
-
1. No, you do not want that voting paragraph. Leave the voting requirements to RONR. In some cases the voting requirement should not be a majority vote. Avoid the "majority of a quorum" language entirely. Quorum refers to how many must be present. Don't confuse that with voting thresholds; the two are independent. 2. I would interpret that to mean a normal majority vote or two-thirds vote. This type of language is always problematic unless the unambiguous language in RONR is used. My rule, which is not Robert's, is that if the word majority (or two-thirds) is immediately followed by the word vote, it's a normal vote, and the phrase "of <body>" just confirms what body is voting. If the word majority (or two-thirds) is immediately followed by "of <body" or even better "of the entire <body>" then it refers to a fixed fraction of the full count of living breathing members of that body. A better form is to say "requires approval of the Board by a two-thirds vote" unless you intend to mean of the entire board. If it's a majority vote there's no need to say so at all. Just "approval of the Board" implies that. And if there's no membership, then what else but the Board could it be? The entire sentence may be superfluous. Less is more in drafting bylaws. -
No, that's wrong. The election is incomplete for the office of the president and must be completed as soon as possible. The president remains in office only until that election is completed, unless she is actually reëlected. Additional nominations from the floor will be in order. The president should not have nominated any members to the committee, least of all herself, and the Nominating Committee should have done its duty to report nominees for all positions. Perhaps a motion is needed "that we try (hey, just for giggles) following the flipping rules around here for a change."?
-
Yes, I think I got two questions confused. But yes, the resignation can still be accepted if not withdrawn sooner.
-
Agreeing with my colleagues, it's difficult to see when a motion "to discuss" would ever be in order. Discussion (a.k.a. debate) occurs between the time a motion is made and seconded, and the time the motion is dispensed with as, for example, being voted on.
-
Resignations are usually submitted in writing to the Secretary, but if offered verbally in a meeting, they are considered to have been properly submitted. I don't see the point of accepting the resignation at this point, although there's no rule against it, but since his term is over, it is meaningless.
-
Ex-officio is not a noun, it is an adjective. Ex officio what? Member? Chair? But no. If the bylaws specify that the president is an ex-officio member of all committees, this does not apply to the executive committee which, in spite of its name is a board, not a committee. But if he is explicitly an ex-officio member of the EC, or any committees, this does not extend to the vice president. If the president is presiding officer at the EC, then he can be removed from the chair for that meeting by a motion to Suspend the Rules and remove him. In that case, the VP would preside if also a member of the EC.
-
Kicked out of a Full County Board Meeting?
Gary Novosielski replied to Sandy Sunshine Girl's topic in General Discussion
This is as close as you're going to get: 61:20 If a person—whether a member of the assembly or not— refuses to obey the order of proper authority to leave the hall during a meeting, the chair should take necessary measures to see that the order is enforced, but should be guided by a judicious appraisal of the situation. The chair can appoint a committee to escort the offender to the door, or the sergeant at-arms—if there is one—can be asked to do this. If those who are assigned that task are unable to persuade the offender to leave, it is usually preferable that he be removed by police— who may, however, be reluctant to intervene unless representatives of the organization are prepared to press charges. But I doubt this applies to your situation. An order of proper authority in this rule refers to the assembly voting to remove someone from the room. If I understand correctly, the Sheriff is not a member of the County Board, but comes to the meeting and threatens to remove board members during a board meeting. That is not what 61:20 is referring to, and there's nothing in RONR that is on point regarding your situation. I think you're going to need legal advice, not parliamentary advice. -
It's beginning to look like we will be seeing neither hide nor pajama of this horse, anyway.
-
They are, if a two-thirds vote in the Executive Committee says that they are. The President should not preside over the motion to remove him, and the VP should preside in his place, but he cannot be compelled to relinquish the chair or abstain from voting on the proposal. Actually, that's not quite true —by a motion to Suspend the Rules (see RONR 12th ed. §25), (requiring a two-thirds vote) he can be temporarily removed from the chair, but he would retain the rights to debate and vote.
-
<Deleted>
-
Kicked out of a Full County Board Meeting?
Gary Novosielski replied to Sandy Sunshine Girl's topic in General Discussion
That's essentially the question I answered. No, there isn't. -
Kicked out of a Full County Board Meeting?
Gary Novosielski replied to Sandy Sunshine Girl's topic in General Discussion
The answer to this question will not be found within RONR, which does not deal with statutes. Consult a lawyer. -
Well, the two special meetings would add to the number of minutes that need approval, but they don't present an opportunity to approve minutes. Minutes are not approved at Special Meetings unless the meeting was called for that purpose.
-
President Resigned with a Letter at our Annual Meeting
Gary Novosielski replied to a topic in General Discussion
Then perhaps in 47:28 there should be inserted the words "or any other reason" if that is the intent of the rule. The newly minted president did not resign, did not die, and was not removed. Her micro-term merely expired or did not, depending on the language in the bylaws. -
Yes, that's all nonsense. All that is necessary to participate fully in the approval process is to be a current member at the time the approval is considered. The classic example of why this is necessary is if a member notices that the minutes of a meeting he was absent from states that he made a particular motion. There is no reason he should be prevented from offering a correction. There are countless other possibilities as well. He might notice spelling or grammar errors for example. Now, it is reasonable to assume that if he has no knowledge of any errors in the minutes, he will not offer a correction, but the rights of a member to participate in the approval process may not be violated on account of absence, even if he was not a member at that former meeting.
-
...except at a meeting called for that purpose.
-
I'd say it was correct. What part of "shall" do they not understand?
-
I'm not prepared to label it absurd until I get answers to my previous questions, which seems unlikely now. I can see why the presumption of absurdity carries weight, given the form of the question. Nevertheless, given a deeper understanding of what's intended, it might be possible to rebut that presumption. It all depends on Dayle.
-
I don't think "dispensing" would violate that right, since it only postpones the Reading and Approval. When the minutes are taken up again, the demand that they be read would still be in effect. This seems to me analogous to the motion to Postpone Definitely taking precedence over a motion to Amend or Commit. Members have a right to debate these motions, but the motion to Postpone only delays but does not violate that right. Moving to dispense with reading is essentially a motion to postpone the approval process to later in the meeting, although I can see an argument can be made that it is equivalent to a motion to lay the approval on the table.
-
Well, unless and until Guest Dale Peterson returns, I guess we won't know what the proper "WORDING" is.
-
No, this "only to break a tie" business is an urban myth. In committees, the Chair participates like any member, including taking part in debate and voting.
-
President Resigned with a Letter at our Annual Meeting
Gary Novosielski replied to a topic in General Discussion
I hope so, but that person would be Vice President, not Second Vice President. -
President Resigned with a Letter at our Annual Meeting
Gary Novosielski replied to a topic in General Discussion
Well, Robert's Rules do not support that scenario. So, if I understand it... The VP became president. There was then a vacancy in the VP position. An election was held. Somebody had a brain glitch and "decided" not to elect a new president. BTW, you are not permitted to "decide" to violate the bylaws. And the board has no power to interfere in an election being held by the membership. Why did anyone listen to them? The terms of all offices, including that of the new president (old VP) expired. So presumably these elections were for VP, Sec'y, Treas., etc.? If so, who was elected VP? Was the old VP running for reëlection before the president resigned? Or what? If the old VP was elected VP again, the question is whether she now ascends to the presidency (again) , and I think that's not at all clear. RONR says: 47:28 In case of the president’s resignation, death, or removal, the vice-president automatically becomes president for the remainder of the term, unless the bylaws expressly provide otherwise for filling a vacancy in the office of president (see also 56:32). The (new) president's term has now expired, and the presidency is vacant, but not because of "resignation, death, or removal"—but because nobody bothered to elect one. I'm sure the authors did not anticipate that when the need to elect a president was arguably most clear, the board (which was not even in session at the time) somehow "decided" that the membership couldn't elect a president. To me, it seems like there is an incomplete election of the president, which should be completed. The VP should preside over meetings until a president is elected. If the VP is elected president, then the vacancy in the vice-presidency should be filled by whatever means the bylaws prescribe. I'm hoping someone can talk me out of this.
