Gary Novosielski

10 hours ago, Secretary2016 said:

I'm creating a new nomination form in time for our next AGM. Many of our members' terms of office expire at the AGM. Do they have to nominate for the committee first and then nominate for an executive position? So, is the first election to just get back on the committee and then is there normally a separate form for the President's role for example?

It sounds like you are describing as situation where the members of a board (usually not called a committee) are elected by the general membership, and then the board elects its own officers from among its members.  If that's the way your bylaws say to do it, then that's how to do it.  But you'll need to check.  

Also, if your bylaws do not mention nominations, why are you designing some sort of form?  You can't require anyone to use it if the bylaws default to nominations from the floor.

5 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

I don't know that we can confidently say that until the OP answers Mr. Tesser's question.

Well the OP knew that the board, by resolution, could change the dues, so I have no reason to doubt that this was a meeting of the appropriate body.

But to be clear, my comment on procedure was limited to the fact that motions can be made, pertinent to a report, while the report is being received, and to the untimeliness (at the very least) of a point of order to the contrary.

26 minutes ago, Steven Britton said:

Generally, I would agree with Mr. Mervosh's analysis, and disagree with with Mr. Novsielski's analysis.

The reasoning lies with Principle of Interpretarion #4, pp. 589, l, 33 - 590, l.-8,  that states:

If the bylaws authorize certain things specifically, other things of the same class are thereby prohibited. There is a presumption that nothing has been placed in the bylaws without some reason for it. There can be no valid reason for authorizing certain things to be done that can clearly be done without the authorization of the bylaws, unless the intent is to specify the things of the same class that may be done, all others being prohibited. Thus, where Article IV, Section I of the Sample Bylaws (p. 585) lists certain officers, the election of other officers not named, such as a sergeant-at-arms, is prohibited.

IMO, the particular bylaws would need to somehow authorize the appointment of assistant officers, or more specifically, an assistant secretary.

 

Nothing I said was intended to imply that assistant officers (your term) were actually officers, so I don't believe the quoted language is applicable.

I see no prohibition in RONR for appointing one or more individuals of non-officer status whose task it is to assist the secretary in the performance of the duties of the office.  The same goes for assistant treasurers, bookkeepers, membership clerks. facilities managers, and the like.

I agree that RONR may be of less help on this question than it might otherwise be because of the public nature of this public school board.  For one thing, there is no "assembly" as such, except for the voters in the district, and no Annual General Meeting except on election day.

I served on such a board for many years and presided for a couple.  State law granted substantial leeway to the board as far as waiving policies, but best practices and good counsel gave us to understand the wisdom of the statement "The best time to amend policy is before you have to."  State law also mandated that policy amendment, rescission and creation were all subject to a majority vote, and in some specific instances, a majority of the entire board.  I have no direct knowledge on the question of waiving previous notice, since we never attempted it, but there were regulations allowing "emergency" action (with appropriate definitions of emergency) with a 4/5 vote.  There were also sharp restrictions on what specific types of business could be conducted in executive session.

None of this should be relied upon as advice for your board.  I present this information only to show the extent to which your state rules may vary from the rules in RONR, and to emphasize the need to thoroughly investigate the applicable laws that pertain to your board.  

If you do find evidence that the board has violated the Sunshine Laws or Open Records laws or ethics regulations, you will probably also discover methods that citizens can use to file complaints and seek redress.

21 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

I think we need more information. Mr. Novosielski's argument seems reasonable, but this scenario involves the executive board removing the President and the national organization reinstating him. RONR grants neither body the authority to do these things, so I think we need to know more about the organization's own rules to determine which (if either) of these actions are proper before determining how to proceed from here.

I don't disagree.   I may have been presuming that the executive board's removal of the president was unauthorized (presumptively true), and that the national organization was presumptuous enough to point that out, and put matters right.  But I can't argue that knowing who actually had what power, when, would be valuable knowledge.

9 hours ago, Guest Joe C said:

With Officers comprised of a Pres, V Pres, Treasurer and Secretary, is an Assistant Secretary an appropriate position as an officer?

You can have an assistant secretary, probably even without amending the bylaws, but you can't have the assistant secretary be an officer without amending the bylaws.

On 12/18/2016 at 6:09 PM, Guest Susan Gaastra said:

I am the treasurer's of an association and during my report, I provided a comment we are running in the red as our expenses are exceeding our revenue and we need to consider raising membership dues or decrease our costs.  During the report discussion a motion was made to increase dues, it was seconded and the motion passed.

A week later the president of the association sent an e-mail stating the motion that was made during the treasurer's report to increase dues, we did not follow proper procedure of follow Roberts Rules and he discussion should have been on the agenda under new business.  

Did we follow proper procedure as the motion was made under the treasurer's report or do we need a line item under new business regarding increasing dues or reducing expenses?

Thank you, Susan

You followed proper procedure perfectly.  

And even if the president was correct that it should have been handled under new business, since nobody (including the president) raised a point of order at the time, it's water under the bridge now.

7 hours ago, Guest Frank said:

In our small HOA, the Pres. appoints Committee Chairs.Can a Board Member be chair of a Committee if the documents are silent on that subject?

Of course.

15 hours ago, Gloria said:

I am te president of an organization.  Our Vice President (we only have 1 VP) has resigned.  Our bylaws require that the President can fill a vacancy by appointment with the approval of BOD.  The bylaws does not address the naming of interim officers.  I would like to name an interim VP.  Must an interim VP have BOD approval.  

When a vacancy for vice-president is filled, the person holding that office is called "Vice President".  You can't evade the provisions of the bylaws with word play.

5 hours ago, KatB said:

Q: "If not then since he holds two positions does he vote twice and get paid for both positions?"

A: "He only gets one vote, but no rule in RONR would prevent him from being paid for both positions. Your rules may provide otherwise. "

I'm trying to find this "two positions, one vote" determination in RONR, but failing miserably. Can you please direct me to the proper page, line or section?

Thank you

KBeringer

The rule is one-person/one-vote.   Positions do not have votes.  People do.

See Öne Person One Vote" in §45.

On 12/18/2016 at 3:13 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

But they are, of course, "applicable procedural rules prescribed by federal, state, or local law," and so must be adhered to by the organization as a matter of the common parliamentary law (as embodied in RONR) as well.

So common parliamentary law sometimes compels organizations to follow additional rules that are not common parliamentary law.

Okay.

8 hours ago, keefe said:

Most likely that would not work.  It doesn't appear that they are restricted from running again due to their position, but rather their term.  And in this case both of their terms are up and they must take 1 year off prior to being elected again.

That would depend on the exact language.  Does it say that having served as in one office for n terms, a person may not run for any other office?

On 12/15/2016 at 11:54 AM, SHOOTER said:

May a board vote to suspend a certain portion of its bylaws in a regular meeting until such time as the as the rules for amending  the bylaws can be followed to formally amend that portion? 

Such a rule is not in the nature of a rule of order, and cannot be suspended.  The member has basically stated that he/she is not qualified to hold that office.  I think it should be treated as a resignation.

It should be obvious, to native speakers at least, that someone who is present yet not voting is not present and voting.   You had two abstentions, one by casting a blank ballot and one by casting no ballot.  Those members were not voting, and were therefore not present and voting.

A 6-2 vote clearly meets the requirements of a 2/3 vote, and no reasonable case can be made to the contrary.

Unless your bylaws say otherwise.

If a midterm vacancy occurs in the office of president, whether by resignation, removal, death, or what have you,   The vice president becomes president automatically

Nobody becomes vice president automatically, unless your society has a numbered sequence of vice presidents, in which case the 1st VP becomes president, and all other VP's subtract 1 from the ordinal number of their office, and slide over one chair.

In any case, a vacancy is created in the office of vice president, or the highest numbered vice president in the latter case.

It seems to me that if the removal is overruled or rescinded by a higher authority, everyone who changed office as a result of the removal resumes their previous office.

If anyone was appointed to any resulting vacancy, they're un-appointed.  Of course you might have customized rules on this, which would supersede anything in RONR. Or the Order of Reinstatement might specify how things should get sorted out.

But I see no reason to presume that the effect of such a reinstatement would be any different from what happens if a motion is rescinded or is declared null and void after its apparent passage.

18 hours ago, Kim Goldsworthy said:

It is a MYTH to believe that:

   • A board member loses his right to debate within a meeting of the general membership.

 

Unless of course this belief is based on the fact that the member of the board is not a member of the general membership, which is unusual but not unheard of.

If in fact it was a Parliamentary Inquiry, then yes, the member should have made the nomination anyway.  There is no way to Appeal an inquiry, becsuse an inquiry is not a ruling.  

If the nomination, when actually made, was ruled improper, that would have been the time to lodge an Appeal.  

And if I were a member, and the chair consulted source after source, including the founding documents and The Work itself, and found no evidence of the existence of this magic rule he had made up, yet nevertheless went right ahead and enforced it anyway, I think I'd be drafting a resolution of censure, at a minimum.

On 12/15/2016 at 0:59 PM, Guest Dick Satterly said:

When a motion is made and seconded for the Secretary to cast one vote to elect an unopposed Officer candidate to office, is a vote by the members present required?

The practice you describe is not anything in RONR, and to the best of my knowledge never was.   The chair should rule it out of order.

Whether a vote is required for unopposed candidates is something you will have to consult your bylaws to find out.  If a ballot vote is required in the bylaws, then a ballot vote must be held (with write-in votes allowed) unless the bylaws have an explicit provision for dispensing with a vote in the case of unopposed candidates.

If your bylaws do not require a vote, the chair does not direct the Secretary cast any vote.  The chair simply announces that if there are no further nominations for the office, the sole nominee is elected by acclamation.

8 hours ago, lpc124 said:

We have a wonderful president and vice president serving on our church's board of trustees. The bylaws state that they can hold up to 2 consecutive 1 year terms and they are now both completing the second 1 year term.  (The bylaws allow them to serve again but after a 1 year break.)

The situation is that our minister is taking sabbatical this coming year and the board is in agreement that they would like to have the president and vice president remain in their roles for another 1 year term to provide the necessary stability for a rapidly growing and active congregation. How would we handle this at the January business meeting when we are scheduled to vote to fill these two offices? Would it be acceptable to make a motion to acknowledge where the bylaws stand on these board terms and to make an exception with a clear rationale and time frame that we would not be in accordance with our bylaws?

 

Absolutely not.  Such a motion would be out of order, and would probably create a continuing breach.

The church would have to amend its bylaws, using the method contained in the bylaws for their own amendment, in order to change any term limits contained in the bylaws.  Such rules are not suspendible.

14 hours ago, Guest jhonora said:

Recently, in a meeting where biennial elections were held a member presented a letter from another member who was willing to be nominated but could not be present. The letter was not accepted on the premise that a member has to be present to be nominated. Upon being challenged, the chairman flipped through the local chapter's bylaws, the national bylaws, and then Robert's Rules, but could not find anything to support his decision not to accept it. The chairman refused to accept the letter. Keep in mind, the letter was just intended to document the nominee's consent and willingness to be nominated. At least three members stood ready to actually make the nomination. - The question is: Must a member be present in order to be nominated? 

No, a member need not be present.  The member who was willing to be nominated acted quite properly by supplying the letter.

I'm mildly shocked by the fact that after the chair was completely unable to support his claim after referring to the founding documents, and RONR, nobody apparently thought to Appeal [§24] from the decision of the chair, and put the matter to a vote.  

The chair does not have the powers of a dictator.  Rulings are ultimately decided by the assembly.  

"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them."
--Frederick Douglass

It may not be relevant, but a vote of 14 - 8 does not amount to a 2/3 vote, if that was indeed the requirement.

I'm also of the view that the assembly can't delegate power to do this, if the bylaws are that specific.

But like any motion to do anything, the assembly could refer the matter to a committee for buffing and polishing before acting on, amending, or ignoring its recommendations, which would be in the nature of nominations

9 hours ago, Guest Linda J said:

Let's see if I have this right. We have a list of nominees-one person per position- closed ballot. Let's say 100 people voting-10 people write no confidence across their ballots. No one writes in any other candidates. The teller's report would reflect...for each position...

Number of votes cast...90   Necessary for election...46    So and so received...90     Illegal votes...0

I'd leave off the illegal votes, since there weren't any.  The business about one vote needed to elect is only true in the case that there is but one vote cast (or no votes cast) .  

• If one vote is cast, a majority is one, since one is the smallest integer more than one half of one.  In that case, one vote is needed to elect, and the candidate is elected.  
• If no votes are cast, the smallest integer more than half of zero is still one, so again, one vote is needed to elect, but in this case, a majority was not reached, and so nobody is elected.  

The abstentions are not counted as votes, and don't raise the number needed to elect, but you've clearly got that point right.  

Good luck.

1 hour ago, DebbieinFL said:

Thank you for replying. My latter confusion was two-fold:

• in reference to whether this meeting would fall under the "subsequent meeting" instruction of pp. 501 
• if a meeting is improperly called are the decisions made binding at all

But if it's determined that this is "a dead horse," then I understand and will ask no more. 

I think the meeting would fall under the "subsequent meeting" instructions, but they refer back to the rule that applies to the first meeting, so it appears that two members are sufficient to call a meeting if the chair fails to call one.  Whether the chair "failed" or not is, I think, up to the committee to decide, unless overruled by the parent body.

If a meeting is improperly called, it is not a valid meeting, and nothing done is valid, but the most likely way that would happen in this scenario is if the two people calling the meeting failed to send notice of the meeting to all committee members.

15 minutes ago, Guest Linda J said:

Does this report include the number of yeses or just the statement that the officers and trustees were elected? this was a closed ballot.

There should be no "Yes" or "No"  votes in an election.  If the vote was by ballot, that ballot would contain the names of those nominated, with space for write-in votes.

14 minutes ago, Clurichan said:

Which (in a ballot election) would list illegal ballots cast for "No Confidence"?

I don't believe so.  I would treat them as not indicating a preference, which RONR advises that the tellers should ignore;

Quote

In recording the votes cast, the principle followed is that a choice has no mandate from the voting body unless approval is expressed by more than half of those entitled to vote and registering any evidence of having some preference. Accordingly, the tellers ignore blank ballots and other ballots that indicate no preference, treating them as abstentions.

 

But stay tuned for other opinions.