Gary Novosielski

I think Messrs. Martin and Kapur have this right. Unless there are rules we don't know about that specify how long a rejection by the board continues to disqualify an applicant, I would assume that the decision applies to that current application and does not continue beyond that point. As long as there is no other rule prohibiting an applicant from renewing an application for a certain period of time, the subsequent application is presumed to be valid. As board approval was no longer required at that point, the earlier rejection by the board is of historical interest only.

Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius?

Usually not, but you'd need to provide a lot more information to know for sure. In some special cases it is.

Only if the president is permitted to get away with it. File this under "ripped from the headlines".

No, it certainly was not proper. Where was the chair when this nonsense was going on?

Well, if the original assertion was "we doan need no stinkin' rules", then calling that a very bad idea is sorta opposite, if not particularly extreme. 🙂

I'm going to agree with J.J. on this one. I think if the matter to be considered--in this case whether to change, or waive, the dues for certain members--is clearly described in the notice, then the purpose of the notice has been satisfied, and members can properly decide whether this issue is one that would prompt them to attend. The exact type of motion needed does not strike me as essential information that would affect that decision. People might well care about the issue of waiving dues, but about the parliamentary method by which this might be accomplished--not so much. Whether the motion is ultimately adopted as a standing rule, special rule of order, bylaws amendment, or an ordinary main motion, should not be a factor in judging the validity of the notice, so long as the correct motion is used, and vote thresholds, scope, and other applicable rules are satisfied. As always, local bylaws might change the answer.

If the BSA has not adopted RONR as its parliamentary authority, there's not much we're going to be able to help you with, except to commiserate around the issue of what a bad idea that is.

I fully agree. I do question whether, in the general case, is is worth going back to amend minutes previously approved to remove discussion (by lining it out so that the discussion is still visible), or whether it is better to simply recognize the proper way of doing things, and follow the rule going forward.

It is apparent that any attempt to remove the 'troublesome' portions of the minutes would likely have the effect of drawing much greater attention to them. That's the principal reason I didn't suggest it.

That's a legal question, which only an attorney can answer. I am not one. Still, I'm guessing that it would a hard case to make since the minutes are presumably not made public, making it difficult to establish how this person was harmed. RONR does advise against making public any information about disciplining members, since doing so might create grounds for a lawsuit. For example, it may become necessary to notify a vendor that a particular person who was expelled for theft is no longer a member of the society, but beyond that simple fact, it would be a mistake to say anything about the reasons why. In general, minutes are a record of what was done, not what was said, so in the future it would be well to remember this rule, and not include any details of debate. All that matters is whether a given motion passed or not. It's possible that the text of the motion or resolution might contain negative information about the accused member, but if that's an unavoidable situation, it would be included in the minutes, but they would remain an internal record of the society.

It sounds like you have not yet counted the ballots, or at least not counted or opened the challenged ballots, so that they remain segregated from the known valid ballots. That should make matters simpler. First, count the unchallenged ballots, and determine what the results would be based on those alone. Then, see whether 80 additional votes (presuming one vote per lot) if they were all voted in the opposite way, could flip the result of the election. If not, then the question is moot as the challenged votes could not affect the outcome. With less than 3% of the vote in question, this may be a very likely outcome. If this is the case, you're done. The challenge can be dismissed as irrelevant. If the 80 votes could affect the outcome, you'll need to address the question of whether they were entitled to be cast. Your challenge process (presumably you have rules about this) would proceed, and if it is decided that the votes were not valid, then once more the outcome stands, and there is no need to count the challenged vote. If you don't have rules for this in place, then RONR would say that the assembly itself decides all questions arising out of any election that it held. If the challenge fails, and the votes are deemed legal, then they would need to be counted and the actual tally added to the original votes, which may or may not affect the result, depending on how they were voted. It's possible that people already can deduce how the developer would have voted, but ideally this should not be a factor in the decision-making, so it's best to delay the actual count if possible, until it has been determined whether the votes really need to be counted.

Yes, it's clear the presiding officer was informed somehow of at least who the winner was, if not the count--perhaps by a whispered comment from the reporting teller. My point was that if the rules are formally followed, the chair would not have such information, so even if the rules were suspended (and "under no conditions" should they be) to permit omitting the announcement, the chair, at the very least should have a full tellers report. Another question would be whether the rule requiring the full report to be entered in the minutes is a suspendible one, and whether, in this instance, it was suspended.

Quite correct. In fact the tellers' report does not have a place to indicate the winners, only the vote counts, and a line for the number needed to elect (a majority). If multiple offices are voted for on one ballot, there will potentially be a different majority number for different offices if not all members cast every possible vote for every office.

That's correct.

The tellers report should be in writing, per the example in RONR. Whether they read it or not, they should hand it to the chair, who can ensure that it is read, and included in the minutes.

Thank you for sharing. Do you have a question?

But we are also told that the President was not presiding at the time this occurred (though we are not told why not).

No, the way to avoid errors is to not adopt them. If the single word omitted was "not", including it would substantially change the meaning of the adopted language. There are ample examples where the omission or inclusion of a single comma would completely change the meaning. The members who are unhappy with this should read what they vote on before voting on it, and to offer amendments to fix any errors. Allowing repairs after the fact is an invitation, in the best case, for laziness on the part of the assembly, and in the worst case, for abuse thwarting the will of the majority.

Yes, RONR states that the totals are to be included in the teller's report, and read twice* before the result is announced. It's not just a "good idea", it's a rule, which should "under no circumstances" be omitted. And the argument against it, specifically rejected in the rule, is a "mistaken deference" to the feelings of the losing candidates. If the totals are omitted in the report, the chair has no basis upon which to determine the results. The tellers committee has no authority to determine who has won, but only to report vote totals. It is the chair, upon interpreting those totals, who announces who is elected. How, then, were you able to determine the winners? I'm not sure how "under no circumstances" squares with being a suspendible rule, but I agree with Mr. Honemann that this is an integral part of a ballot vote, and if the bylaws mandate a ballot vote, then they mandate the proper announcement of totals, which may not be suspended. __________ * Once by the reporting teller, who reads the totals but not the result, and again by the chair, who thereafter does announce the result.

How could 8 trustees have approved anything without a quorum? It doesn't matter who is in favor of what unless you can get a quorum in the room. Eight trustees could not have adopted such a resolution. The chair should have ruled it out of order. Do you have a general membership who elects the board? If so, the membership could meet to impose discipline on those board members who are not performing their duties, i.e., showing up.

Mr. Brown is correct, however, when Sunshine Laws are involved. Typically, they will require at least a general category from a list of permissible categories to be mentioned in the motion to go into exec. There may be other requirements as well, such as stating in the motion whether action (i.e., motion and vote) will be taken in executive session. These statements included in the motion then limit the action in executive session to those conditions mentioned in the motion.

By which I presume you mean RONR: Roberts' "Rules of Order Newly Revised"

LOL, okay. Time for a cup of coffee. 😛

The same rules of decorum that apply to the rest of the meeting would apply to Open Forum as well. See RONR 11th ed. pages xxxiv, 39, 295, 391–393, 450