Gary Novosielski

Presuming ballot voting is not required in the bylaws for unopposed offices, or for any offices then: I think it depends on what the local rule or custom is on voting. If the organization normally considers each office in sequence--committee nomination, floor nomination(s) balloting, counting, reporting--then on to the next office, it would make sense to do acclamations for individual offices as each comes up. But if balloting (if any) would normally occur on a single ballot with a section for each office, then it makes sense to read the committee report, call for additional nominations, acclaim any unopposed candidates, and ballot for any others. Each of the two methods for elections has its pros and cons. In the case of one-by-one voting, the results of early voting can and often does influence who gets nominated from the floor for later offices. The differences between the two methods tend to blur if all or nearly all offices are filled by acclamation.

Did you raise a Point of Order?

If by "discourages" you mean "prohibits," I agree. The only way it would be allowed is if it were written into the bylaws. And that, RONR strongly discourages.

A single board position cannot be shared by two people, if the rules in RONR apply. How did this situation occur?

Where does this authority come from? Are you even a member of the organization, or a staff member in the sense of an employee?

I agree. I think that if a single member "demands" that several others be excluded, the chair should step in and correct the demander, even if the chair is one of those named for exclusion. How sharp the correction should be depends on just how demanding the member is. If he truly believes that the rules require exclusion, then a Parliamentary Inquiry or even a Point of Order would be a more decorous way of suggesting that a member does not have a right to remain. He'd still be wrong, but would come across as less of an <expletive>.

I think you're mixing the facts from two different questioners. J.J. was responding to Guest Patti.

If you feel she should not be reimbursed, then you should debate against it when it comes up for debate (presumably by a motion to Ratify). Or has it already? What happened at that meeting where she requested to be reimbursed?

I think it's perfectly clear as it stands now.

I agree with my colleagues that the process at the first meeting was very sketchy but that there's nothing to suggest that either meeting was "illegitimate". My only additional remark would be with respect to the first meeting, where it seems as though a member with no authority to do so demanded that members leave, and perhaps they were unwise enough to comply. If their departure caused a loss of quorum (were there only two members left?) then anything decided after that point would be a problem, but if I'm reading it right, nothing actually was.

If I understand the situation correctly, the basis for X's ejection (and subsequent expulsion?) was not based upon anything he said or did during that meeting, and if that is true, then nothing in §61 prior to 61:22 applies to the situation. Instead, the procedures in 61:22 ff. would apply, and should have been used. These procedures include an investigation and trial.

Sounded like a marmot.

Well RONR has no provisions for a "Gentlemen's Agreement". So it's not clear what this is. If it's going to be introduced, I have to assume it's a motion of some sort. If it proposed doing something that would be against the rules, you would raise a Point of Order that it is not in order, and if the chair rules against you, be prepared to Appeal. These are covered in RONR (12th ed.) §23 and §24 respectively. But my main question, beyond how to stop what you perceive to be wrong, is: What is supposed to happen at this meeting? Who actually has the right to appoint these seats, and beyond being "unfair", does this "agreement" actually break any rules?

One person--one vote is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law. If your bylaws vary from that, you might need to develop Special Rules of Order to cover all the complexities that result from that departure.

By a majority vote, the board may invite visitors to a meeting. But just because the visitor is a parliamentarian would not confer any rights greater than any other visitor. In particular, it would still be the presiding officer who would issue any rulings.

Within the limits of decorum. I can imagine a situation where it would exceed them.

No, there is no way to raise a Point of Order against someone's nomination unless you can show that they do not meet the eligibility requirements in the bylaws. What you do is nominate someone else, or vote for someone else as a write-in vote. The rules on ballot votes say: 45:25 In elections, “for” and “against” spaces or boxes may not be used. They are applicable only with respect to votes on motions. In an election, a voter can vote against one candidate only by voting for another who has been nominated or by writing in the name of another candidate.

Why? That amount is certainly within the scope of the notice.

Vaguely. Wasn't there something about a weasel?

It seemed to me that the vote was held at the meeting, and the two who did not vote could not vote because they were not at the meeting. There's no mention of another polling place. Will Teri H please clarify?

No. any change (amendment) to the proposals that remained within the scope of the original notice would not require additional notice. Scope of notice is a somewhat nuanced topic. For a comprehensive view, see 35:2(6), 35:4, 56:50, 57:1(2), 57:4–5, and 57:10–13. But the essence is this: Suppose you were a person who had received this notice, looked it over, and decided that, as far as you were concerned, nothing in the proposed amendments affects you so strongly that you are willing to reschedule a haircut appointment so you can attend the meeting and speak or vote on the proposal, either in support or opposition, or perhaps just to attend to ask questions about it. Your attitude is strongly "yeah whatever". But after the meeting, you hear about a "tweak" to one of the proposed amendments that was passed at the meeting. Your reaction to that is "Woah! If I had known that could happen, I would have shown up bigtime! But that notice never gave me any clue!" This is the situation that the scope-of-notice rule is designed to prevent. If there's a proposal for a ten dollar dues increase, you might shrug it off, and if you later find that dues were only increased by five bucks, you're going to be fine with that. But if the dues were to increase by $700, you might have a different reaction. That's because such an increase would exceed the scope of the original notice. And that's why amendments like that are not in order, while those that remain within the scope are.

That certainly seems to exceed the scope by about five bucks.

I think the test should be: is the time for adjournment identified with sufficient specificity that one is able to state, at some point in the meeting, "The time for adjournment has arrived," even if not all business has been completed. If not, then the Adjournment item is simply confirming that there is no business scheduled beyond that point, akin to typing -30- or # # # at the end of a news article.

No, it would have to be done immediately at the time the results were being announced. And there is no rule in RONR that permits holding off action because two members were not present. It's too late for them to vote.

That's a bit of a stretch. Are you assuming that previous notice is not required for these amendments? We've been told that 40 days previous notice is required. Any motion beyond the scope of that notice would destroy the previous notice, and therefore not be in order.