Gary Novosielski

Per RONR, non-members may not vote. There are no exceptions. And in general, tie votes simply defeat the motion, as with any other vote that fails to reach the threshold. The right of a presiding officer to vote does not change this rule. It can sometimes affect whether there is a tie or is not a tie, at which point the rule applies normally.

An additional wrinkle in this provision is that the parliamentarian: These duties are ordinarily a part of the presiding officer's job description, but in this instance are imposed upon the parliamentarian. Absent this provision, his job would merely be to advise the chair, not to "make sure" of anything. How the parliamentarian can make sure of things if he does not receive notice of meetings is left as an exercise.

They can if they are members of the body that is meeting. I can't tell from the question if they are or not.

Yeah, for some reason that makes less than the usual amount of sense, since it's still the committee's recommendation.

I'm not convinced that he is a non-voting member. I'm not convinced that the bylaws say he is a member at all, and I'm not convinced he's an ex-officio member. but I'm also not convinced that he's not a member. I don't know what he is. But if he's a member, and if he's not notified of a special meeting a sufficient number of days in advance, then the meeting is not properly called, and cannot conduct business. [49:16] Unless I'm wrong. of course.

A motion that was recommended by a committee (i.e., included in their report by a majority vote) a second is not necessary. I don't think it matters whether the mover is the committee chair or not. The only additional requirement is that the committee must consist of at least two members. if not, then a second would be needed.

Unfortunately, the entire answer depends on whether or not he is a member of the board. Since that is not certain, there's no way I can give you a clear answer.

You bet.

Before we get to that we need to make sure that the pastor is a member of the assembly. There are examples where this is true, and others where it's not. Even if the pastor is considered a salaried employee, or named as the moderator of all meetings, he may still be a non-member of the assembly.

No, I'm pretty okay with those, thanks.

It may well be, or turn into, a legal matter. Certainly the TRO must be complied with, and we don't know what it says, although we are told that it prevents holding a meeting regarding removal of the president. If that's correct, and it doesn't prevent meetings on other topics, then it doesn't prevent a meeting regarding the finances. So if the second meeting isn't prevented, I stand by my response. If the TRO prevents it, then obviously it can't occur. And determining which of these cases apply is, I agree, a legal question, not a parliamentary one. As a practical matter, we don't know what the financial impact, if any, will be, until the case is finally resolved. We can be sure the lawyers will get paid by somebody.

No they don't. In the first place, they can't be compelled to do so, and in this instance there's not even any reason suggesting that they should. RONR says that members should not vote on an issue in which they have a personal or pecuniary interest that is not in common with other members. From the facts provided, they do not have a personal interest, nor a pecuniary interest except as relates to the interest of the organization not to have its funds spent without approval. That's not a conflict of interest--that's part of their job description! And the fact that all nine share that interest kicks the props out from under that last not-in-common point as well, but that was already a non-issue. So there's basically nothing to back up the president's claim.

The point remains: Suppose an election comes up, and about half the seats are uncontested. Should all the votes take place by ballot? Clearly the contested seats should be. But what of the others? The bylaws appear permit acclamation, but not require it. Yet clearly the exception was put there for some reason. The bylaws could have been more specific but as is often the case, they're not. So how should the chair proceed? I.e., what's the default situation here?

All right, let's say: When the number of nominees for any office exceeds the number to be elected, voting shall be by ballot. Assume that any ambiguity is the result of guileless naïveté on the part of the drafters.

That would seem to rule out bird flipping, but it could also be argued that it leaves a loophole, making it permissible if accompanied by an appeal?

Coolness. 😎

The set of facts where the bylaws require a ballot vote for elections, with an exception of the case of an unopposed candidate, and where an election is pending with at least one candidate unopposed. I have seen countless answers given here (including a countable number given by me) where people asked if an unopposed candidate was automatically considered elected, and we have answered that if the bylaws require a ballot vote, even unopposed candidates must be voted on by ballot, unless the bylaws included an exception in that case. Should we be modifying that advice?

Yes it certainly could. And don't call me Shirley. 😊 (I would suggest however, that the word unwisely should be moved from before the word uses, and placed before the word allows.)

That's correct. The presumption is that the decision of the chair was correct. Although the intent of the motion is to overrule it, the question is reversed, and stated in the affirmative. So it takes a majority in the negative to overrule the ruling.

I can agree with that. But I maintain that if the bylaws¹ provide that voting for any office shall be by ballot except when nominees outnumber seats, then it has specifically said so. I would personally prefer to include a section of the ballot with a single name (and write-in line) rather than acclamation, since it makes it easier for voters to vote against a candidate they don't like. But I think that such a provision in the bylaws, which is quite common, is intended to shorten the process. But I also recognize that this advantage is more pronounced when the assembly holds individual elections for each office rather than combined on one ballot. It costs virtually nothing in time or effort to include a section for an unopposed office on a ballot, so in that case any time-saving would be minimal. Perhaps in cases such as the above, where the bylaws provision is a may rather than a shall, the chair instead of declaring the single nominee elected he should prepend "If there is no objection"? __________ ¹ as opposed to an order by the assembly that an entire election shall be held by ballot

Almost exactly.

It depends entirely on just what rules were not followed. In most cases, a Point of Order would need to have been raised at the time, or it would now be too late. But there are exceptions. So, please explain the entire situation.

Well, I did preface my remark by saying: So, are you saying that if an assembly is conducting an election by ballot, and the bylaws provide that ballots are not required for unopposed candidates, that it would be improper to declare some candidates elected by acclamation who meet that qualification, just because the entire process was not viva-voce all the way? That would be news to me.

It makes sense to wait for a quorum before calling the meeting to order, but if it becomes obvious that a quorum will not be obtained, the meeting should be called to order, and then adjourned fairly promptly, especially if there is a rule that the meeting must be held. But no substantive business can be considered as long as the meeting remains without a quorum. One motion that is allowed is to set the time for an adjourned meeting for a time when a quorum might be more readily obtained. Also allowed are motions to recess or to take some measures to obtain a quorum, and of course the motion to adjourn. But no, you cannot move, discuss, or vote on any real items of business.

No. The only time RONR refers to "emergencies" is with respect to rapidly adjourning a meeting in the event of fire or riot. In common usage "emergencies" exist when life or property are in danger. But none of this matters with respect to your question. Board meetings (or for that matter, membership meetings) are of two types: regular, and special. So what you're referring to is a special meeting. Special meetings must be authorized in the bylaws or they cannot be held. The provisions in the bylaws should state who has the authority to call special meetings (often the president -or- a stated number of members), and how much notice is required. In addition, the actual call of the meeting that is sent to all members must include a clear and specific description of the business for which the meeting is being called, and no other business may be considered at the meeting.