Gary Novosielski

From RONR as cited by Mr. Harrison: As noted, a motion to Accept a report is an error. If it is moved and fails, it has no effect, the same as if it had never been moved. Instead, after a report is read, the chair should simply announce that the secretary will place the report on file.

If the President has not yet appointed someone, then what is the mechanism by which the position would be assigned to another officer? It seems to me that any procedure like this would have to be in the bylaws, and would have to state who decides on the temporary assignment. If it's the President, what's the point of such a two-step process?

Ooh, well, I certainly agree that a suspension of the rules is not sufficient and that a bylaws provision is required. I've even argued that the bylaws provision need not be explicit as regards ineligibility. But I don't think that a rule that merely drops someone ought to be considered sufficient without some evidence of additional intent, such as restricting write-in votes. It would not surprise me to learn that some bylaws drafters would believe that dropping a candidate from the ballot would make him ineligible, but I think we have the right to assume that diligent drafters would be familiar with the rules in RONR, would know that dropping and ineligibility are not necessarily equivalent and would make clear their intent if, in fact, it was to make the person ineligible. Or would this only be true in a perfect world?

Exactly my point. RONR is clear that merely dropping someone from the ballot does not make them ineligible for election. But if write-ins are in fact prohibited on subsequent ballots (I say if because I don't know what "provided for" means) then that makes anyone who is not on the ballot ineligible for election. It makes no sense to insist that a person is eligible for election if there is no way that any legal votes can be cast for that person. Eligible means not only that if elected they may serve but also that it is possible to elect them.

I agree that dropping the lowest candidate is not equivalent to making him ineligible. But I think prohibiting write-ins on the second and subsequent ballots (if that is indeed what the bylaws provide) would amount to the same thing. Making a candidate ineligible, as distinguished from invalidating any votes for that candidate, is a distinction without a difference. Again, the rule in RONR seems to require only a provision to that effect, not a specific or explicit one.

Indeed, that would also win, as the two are exact opposites. The award was named after the Sky King TV show, wherein niece Penny would use wretched procedure on the radio to Uncle Schuyler's plane. E.g. "ROGER WILCO, OVER and OUT, Uncle Sky!" That one would have earned her three awards simultaneously: one for the ROGER WILCO, as noted, but also one for the OVER and OUT, plus one for saying anything whatsoever following either.

In Signal Corps training, saying that would win you the "Sky King" award, which consisted of an assignment to clean the latrine. The logic is that the prosign ROGER means I have received and understood you, while WILCO means I have received and understood your instructions and will comply. Thus, ROGER WILCO is redundant, a cardinal sin in radio procedure. But rather than appear overly pedantic, I'd like to welcome you to the forum and hope you find it useful and informative (in stark contrast to my comment above.)

I don't think that's clear. The principles of interpretation tell us: 4) If the bylaws authorize certain things specifically, other things of the same class are thereby prohibited. So if the bylaws authorize write-ins specifically on certain ballots, i.e., the first, the chair might well rule that they are thereby prohibited on other ballots. Yes, RONR says that restricting the eligibility of dropped candidates can only be accomplished via a bylaws provision, but this is a bylaws provision. The rule does not require an "express prohibition". Prohibiting write-ins amounts to such a prohibition. The verbatim wording of the bylaws might cast more light on this question. I can imagine language that might go either way.

If the rules in RONR apply, the chair does not have this authority, but the board itself (by majority vote) does. So the chair would need the approval of the board for any non-board-member guests to attend. But check your bylaws for possible local rules.

If you have adopted RONR as your parliamentary authority, the rules in RONR apply, and not those of some lawyer's web site. It's true that "frequently Boards can now conduct business" via e-mail, but only if there are rules authorizing it. And the suggestion that all actions be ratified at the next meeting only raises questions about the validity of such actions in the first place. While you might get insight on how statutes and regulations apply to your organization, lawyers are not the most reliable source of parliamentary advice, and it would not surprise me if the web site had a disclaimer that the information found there does not constitute legal advice.

I understand your thoughts, but I'm going with self-contradictory. You say that in our usual procedure abstentions "count", in that they affect the threshold. Yet a 50-40 vote, which is a majority, remains unaffected whether there are no abstentions or 100. There is never a need to "count" abstentions at all, which makes it difficult to say that they "count". Same goes for absentees. Votes, and only votes, count. Abstentions and absentees "count" only insofar as they enable us to algebraically calculate the size of the entire membership. And that number affects the threshold only when the rule is "of the entire membership".

I have seen it done that way, but there's no rule in RONR on the subject.

Item #1 is self-contradictory. If you always vote based on a majority of the entire membership, then abstentions and absences do affect the result. Although not counted for or against the motion, they have the same effect as a No vote. The only way to have abstentions and absences truly not affect the result is to vote based upon a majority (or other fraction) of those present and voting.

I would, if it belonged to me. ☹️

Could this "slate" rule be suspended, do you think?

I can't find any edition listed anywhere. It does say "Seventh Thousand" at one point.

No. It's too late. And since it was not a roll call vote, and the vote was not recorded, how can you be sure how this member voted?

If the chair orders himself removed, it might be prudent not to appeal.

I find that text in the Pocket Manual, §34, pp. 82-83.

If the chair fails to silence the non-member, any member may raise a point of order that the meeting is not in order.

Makes sense, since they don't exist either.

Understood, but since, as you know, there is no vote on final approval, it's not a particularly good opportunity to suspend the rules. It seems to me that the breach would be in the offering of the correction (which is, as you correctly note, in the nature of a motion to amend) which seeks to strike the paragraph in question. My reasoning is that if a correction is agreed to either by unanimous consent or a majority vote, the minutes are as good as amended at that point, at least with respect to that particular point.

There is no final vote on the minutes as corrected. Once there are no (further) corrections offered, the chair announces that the minutes stand approved. So the motion "I move to Suspend the rules that interfere with deliberately falsifying the minutes, and strike <language>" would be made at the time the "correction" is offered. The motion is not debatable, so the vote would occur at that time.

And I'm unclear as to why putting things in writing would be opposed to what can be brought before the assembly. Things in writing can certainly be brought before the assembly. In fact, the convention standing rules may (and probably should) require that all main motions be presented in writing, whether formatted as a simple motion or as a more formal resolution.

The motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted is discussed in detail in RONR section §35.