Gary Novosielski

If by interesting you mean erroneous, I have to admit there's another way to read it. But if the OPs rules say it is so "per RONR" I would not quarrel with the fact that it is true "per RONR". And the society would be free to adopt such a requirement even if RONR was silent on the issue.

Well, it says they "usually" are seated separately, but it's not exactly a rule in RONR. It may be a rule in your rulebook.

In my view, a member who casts a secret ballot has waived his right to have his dissent recorded.

To remove the president from office, since your bylaws contain the wording "or until", takes a majority vote with previous notice, a 2/3 vote without previous notice, or a vote of a majority of the entire membership, any of which will suffice. See http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#20 for details.

Well, it seems to me that the question of what to do if no rules were violated does not have applicability here as, if the rules had been followed, there would be no discrepancy. I think the membership (not the board) has the power to declare the election (or that portion of it which has questionable results) to be null and void, presuming the results have not yet been announced, and order a re-vote. But I also think that the membership has the power to accept the results in spite of the discrepancy. But it can only do either of these things at a regular or properly called meeting at which a quorum is present, which you say never happens. Are you certain that a meeting announced for this specific purpose would still not secure a quorum? In other circumstances, the membership could also declare certain specific ballots invalid but, if I understand the situation, there is no reasonable way to tell the allegedly invalid ballots from the valid ones. The quorum seems to be the sticking point here, and I don't see a way around it. If the rules in RONR apply, the membership is the final authority on any questions of election validity, but without a proper quorate meeting, decisions can't be made.

There's a difference between revoting and recounting. A recount just means counting the same ballots again. That doesn't seem to be what you're asking about. I don't think you've made clear exactly what was wrong with the ballots, what are these signatures you speak of, and what your bylaws said was wrong with the situation.

No, a vote is not proper. The only way to object to final approval of the minutes is to offer a correction. Once no (further) corrections are offered, the minutes stand approved (as read/printed/corrected). Votes may be necessary on individual corrections if there is not unanimous consent to agree to the correction. Corrections are treated exactly like a proposed amendment to the secretary's draft minutes. If not agreed to by general consent, a majority vote is required to agree to them.

If this is to be done in the context of a ballot vote, it seems to me that a member who wishes to have his dissent recorded must not cast a secret ballot, but rather cast his vote openly, so that it can be verified that he did, in fact, dissent.

As well it should. Which raises the question of what to make of someone who attempts to abstain more than once.

Actually we don't have very many policemen, firemen, or mailmen any more. We have police officers, firefighters, and letter carriers.

The rule that only members may participate in debate ordinarily controls, but the rule is suspendible, so the 2/3 threshold comes from the vote requirement for Suspend the Rules.

You are not alone. There was also a brief period when RONRIB 1st ed. was snaggable, but unfortunately all its references are to RONR 10th ed.

True. Which is a good argument against such a rule. Many organizations place (or rather misplace) a lot of faith in the process of printing and distributing "official" ballots to ensure election security. I say misplace because the appropriate place to exercise scrupulous security is in the collection or casting of ballots. If that is done, free distribution of blank papers or official ballots is not a problem. A well organized and controlled polling place with membership lists that can be countersigned or initialed by voters before a vote is accepted, as well as insisting on the practice of folding each ballot twice before it is placed in the ballot box, can preclude the possibility of ballot "stuffing" ..

Ah, I was a True Fan of the World's Foremost Authority. On parliamentary matters he once said: Which as usual does not go very far in answering anything. But if the rules say that a member may vote once, and a member is caught voting twice, would it be a valid defense to claim that by voting twice, he had, by inclusion, actually voted once, even if he had done so a plurality of times?

Well, analogies to platforms or bylaws notwithstanding, according the the original question, this was a single document. If so, the motion is to approve the entire document, amendments to the then-pending document are considered either individually as offered, or by paragraph, and the final vote is on the document as amended. I don't see what is gained by treating this as a raft of individual main motions.

The major considerations in what makes for a valid ballot are: the ballot should indicate the intent of the voter. there should be controls in place to assure that no one votes more than once. According to RONR, blank pieces of paper will do just fine as ballots. So I don't immediately spot a problem with what you've described. And the person nominated from the floor was just as much "in nomination" as anyone else. Those nominated sooner rather than later don't have special rights or powers.

RONR contains no formal rules regarding how liaison between two different bodies should be accomplished, so any rules would have to be those of the bodies in question. It is not uncommon, whether by rule or custom, that a liaison is granted the right to attend meetings of the receiving body, may be permitted to address the body with any message from the sending body, and report back relevant facts in meetings of the sending body. But it's also entirely possible for any liaison activity to take place on a purely informal basis. The two groups are free to work out as formal or informal a system as they desire.

Oh, I agree with you all right, but I stand by my prediction that objection would be likely.

Any time the announcement, any member may doubt the result and demand a rising vote, and if close, a counted vote. But if everyone just sat there and consented to the announcement of the chair, there's little that can be done at this point.

When such a motion is before the assembly, there's no reason why a member can't offer an amendment to the wording, presuming it gets seconded. You are free to explain in debate why you believe it would be a bad idea.

Best practice would include avoiding the use of the term "slate". Instead, the report of the nominating committee is a "list" of nominees-typically one for each office to be filled, but not always. This list could be added to by nominations from the floor, which the chair must call for after the report of the nominating committee has been given. As long as a majority of the committee agrees with its final report, I don't see any reason why the committee can't choose whatever methods it likes to score the names under consideration, unless it has been specifically instructed otherwise.

No there is not. And RONR recommends that no method of voting that mixes in-person votes with absentee votes should ever be used. You can see why. Nothing puts the board "in limbo" although your quorum requirements may become a problem. If the membership can't fill the minimum number of seats at this meeting, it can set an adjourned meeting at which the election can be completed.

The president. Although if the president is expected to rule unfavorably on some key points, the members should familiarize themselves with the operation of the motion to Appeal, since it may be necessary. I'm not sure how you intend to get the board to "commit" or "resign". You can't really force them to do either. You should familiarize yourself with the requirements for removing directors from office, since that's the alternative that is most likely to get their attention.

The president should, unless the purpose of the special meeting, as stated in the call of the meeting, is such that the president would have a personal or pecuniary interest in the outcome, not in common with other members, in which case the president should step out of the chair and allow the VP to preside.

A majority is not "50% or more" it is strictly more than 50%. In your scenario, those who receive a majority are elected, and an additional ballot is held for the unfilled seats. it's not a runoff, as nobody is dropped (unless already elected). You keep voting until all seats are filled. It is also in order to reopen nominations between ballots, and candidates may voluntarily withdraw between ballots as well. Sometimes in the case of a durable tie, the two candidates agree that one will withdraw decided by a coin toss.