Gary Novosielski

Committee meetings are somewhat different from meetings of actual assemblies. The use of an agenda would be unusual to begin with. A lot depends on what sort of committee this is, Standing or Select (ad hoc), and on what the committee was charged with by the parent body. What type of new business are we talking about, and what makes you think it's a problem (if you do)?

I have seen quorum requirements that provide that a certain percentage of members plus a certain number of officers must be present to hold a membership meeting but I consider those provisions to be misguided. At a meeting of the membership, board members should be present only as general members, with no special deference, except for the presiding and recording officers who have the usual roles. In the examples given above I think it makes the most sense to assume that the two requirements apply to the two types of meetings: one for board meetings and the other for membership meetings. But only after reading them in the full context of the bylaws (which I am not volunteering to do) would I be willing to put money on it.

Well, yes, but they do so, at least in part, by allowing plurality voting. And I still have a problem with filling 100 positions (whether alternates or delegates) and yet not allowing members to cast 100 votes. I don't think the bylaws address that objection. Would it be fine to elect three candidates to a board and allow members to cast only two votes?

Ex officio does not mean non-voting. It means membership because of holding some (other) office. If you have some bylaws provision that an ex-officio member has no vote, then that member has no vote. Otherwise they have all the rights of any other member. The phrase voice but no vote appears in some bylaws but it does not appear anywhere in RONR. Your organization is responsible for interpreting its own bylaws, so anything I say is just a guess, but since motions are typically made using the voice, it seems reasonable that such a member could make motions. RONR says nothing on the subject except to say that if your bylaws are ambiguous, you should fix them.

The fact that you are running for election does not constitute a conflict of interest at all, much less for everything election-related. Suspension of quorum is not a thing. No vote, no matter how large can suspend a quorum if one is not present. You do not have to leave the room for that discussion because there's no discussion. It simply can't be done. And you would not have to leave the room anyway because it's a discussion of the quorum rule, not on your candidacy. And you still would not have to leave the room because you're not subject to any discipline. Somebody is feeding you a line of goulash regarding conflicts of interest, if the rules in RONR apply. Do you have some weird bylaws that support any of this odd reasoning? If not, then Objection to the Consideration of the Question is not what you would use in this case. It would be a straight up Point of Order that the quorum set in the bylaws can not be suspended. Period.

Or if, as in this case, the bylaws say so.

I think you're confusing the two types of meeting. The Annual meeting (unless your convoluted bylaws are unusual) is a meeting of the Membership. It is not a board meeting that general members are allowed to attend. It is a Membership meeting at which board members are permitted to attend as ordinary members, if in fact they are. Elections are run by the general membership, not by the board, which is not in session and so not even present as a board during the Annual Meeting. The board is a subordinate body to the Membership. It does not issue orders, it obeys orders.

Understood. Well, in view of the fact that there are not expected to be even 1 candidate per empty seat, the likelihood of ties is great. I don't think vote count was the best metric in this instance, but if that's what the bylaws say, then that's the rule until it can be changed. A better method might be ranking the names with a number rather then just a ☑️ mark. Although ties are likely under the current method, it will be less likely that everyone who votes for Andria Sykes will give her the same rank number. I don't think this will violate the usual objection to ranked choice voting as it would if applied to a single seat. In any case, it looks like changing anything would require at least a Special Rule of Order and perhaps a bylaws amendment. There's no-excellent answer to inconvenient rules except to think up better ones. I can understand the logic of limiting the votes to fifty, but to me it still feels sketchy. I know it would be reasonable to say that, really, only fifty delegates are up for election, but we have often stressed that those who lose an election have no claim to preference in vacancy filling based on their next best vote count. Are we saying that plurality voting dilutes this objection? Fortunately the interpretation of the bylaws is up to the assembly.

If the second ballot is explicitly to elect alternates, no ranking is necessary.

The dreaded passive voice strikes again. Surely someone must have done something, as votes do not "deem" themselves. I would expect the minutes to include the motion, the results of the vote, presumably a Point of Order that the result should be declared null and void, and a ruling by the chair (or upon appeal) that the point was well-taken, and that the adopted motion was therefore declared null and void.

Do your bylaws state what the purpose of the Annual Meeting is? Ordinarily the Annual Meeting is considered to be a regular meeting, even if it is only one of twelve such regular meetings, or perhaps the only regular meeting (of the general membership).

I'm not sure I see a difference. Suppose there is an executive session and I provide information during debate. The other members present have obtained that information during executive session, but I had the information when I walked in. Would it be fair to say that I did not obtain the information there? Would I be free to provide this information in other contexts, so long as I did not state that I revealed it in executive session, or reveal how others reacted to it? I think so. unless there was some other reason that I need to keep it secret.

That is certainly the closest parallel with respect to assigning positions based on vote counts, but I don't think it speaks to the question of having 100 positions to fill and therefore instructing voters to Vote for up to 100. And that paragraph also notes that multiple ties may require subsequent ballots, which may still happen unless there is a very large number of candidates. I would favor one ballot for fifty delegate seats, and a second one for fifty alternate seats. If a copying machine is available, take a blank first ballot, white-out the names that have already been elected, and copy off enough for the second ballot. If there is no copier, use the same ballot for both votes, and after passing out ballots for the second round, instruct voters to line out the names of the elected delegates

Thank you for clarifying. Yes that's correct; even an assembly member who was on the committee, and who made Argument 1 in committee, can make Argument 1 in the assembly debate on the committee's report, but without alluding to the actual deliberations.

I can't at the moment provide a rule that says so in so many words, but that may be a fault in my memory or perhaps because the authors felt it was so obvious. For example, if three board seats are open, a member may vote for up to three names. Ironically enough, the principle may be stated most clearly in 46:43, Cumulative Voting, which is a voting method which violates this very principle of one-candidate/one-vote. It says, in relevant part: However, this method of voting, which permits a member to cast multiple votes for a single candidate, must be viewed with reservation since it violates the fundamental principle of parliamentary law that each member is entitled to one and only one vote on a question. Absent a provision in the bylaws authorizing it, cumulative voting is therefore prohibited by RONR on the grounds of this fundamental principle of parliamentary law. Just as a ballot to elect three board members comprises three questions, i.e., who shall fill each of three positions, a ballot to elect a delegation of one hundred poses 100 questions, and each member is entitled to vote on who shall fill each of them.

You and I seem to have a different interpretation of the words No one. The rule does not say "No committee member", it says "No one".

Yes, good point. While a Special Rule of Order (in contrast to a bylaws provision) would not be sufficient to allow the election of officers by plurality, it would be enough if applied to the election of delegates. If no such provision of either kind has been adopted, a majority is required to elect.

Well, not absolutely none. In 51:65 we find: [I]n debate on any written or oral report in the assembly, any member of the reporting committee who does not concur has the same right as any other member of the assembly to speak individually in opposition. No one can make allusion in the assembly to what has occurred during the deliberations of the committee, however, unless it is by report of the committee or by unanimous consent.

If you have adopted RONR as your parliamentary authority, then the rules in RONR are yours too. 🙂 If 100 seats are being filled, RONR would require that voters be able to vote for up to 100 people. And if I understood what you said earlier, your bylaws do authorize plurality voting and ranking by vote count. If not, you can't use plurality voting.

I agree. Assuming the governing body has the power to approve or reject changes adopted at the local level, and they required changes, it is still up to the membership to review and adopt the changes. The secretary acting alone has no such power (unless you have a very strange bylaws article on amendments.) You should immediately notify the governing body that the resubmission was not properly authorized, and then follow your rules on amendments to make your bylaws say what they're supposed to say. Then send that information to the governing body and wait for a response. Until then you're working with the old bylaws before any of this happened.

We need to be clear on the terminology here. Club members who are not on the board are considered non-members at board meetings. People who are not members of the club at all are also non-members at board meetings. The board controls who is allowed at their meetings, except that it must allow non-members who are Club members, unless the board goes into executive session. Non-members of the Club do not have any right to attend. But the board always has the power to allow anyone it wants to any of its meetings, even in executive session, even if they don't have the right to attend. So the answer to your question is: Yes, if the board wants to. According to your bylaws, board members must receive notice of board meetings from the secretary, but this is not true for general Club members. You'll have to arrange some other way to find out, which could include passing a motion at a general membership meeting directing the board to provide a method to notify the general membership of its meetings, or could include amending the bylaws to add that duty to the secretary's responsibilities.

I thought perhaps a group of metalworkers such as the night shift at Kruger Industrial Smoothing.

So you've "decided" to violate your own rules? Or you don't believe this would?

Then I would refer you to @Josh Martin's reply, which applies to your situation. RONR establishes no such "right". Ask the insistent member what rule, regulation, bylaw, or custom does she believe grants her this "right". Who knows, maybe she'll come up with something, but it's hard to recommend where to look when you don't even know whether the thing you're looking for exists.

It's not clear what you mean by "filings". What sort of things are included in that term? Are you referring to minutes, or some other kind of records?