Gary Novosielski

Resend means to send again. Rescind means to reverse a previously passed motion. What you probably mean is to withdraw from nomination. RONR has no rule for this because, referring to my previous reply, it has no provision for accepting or declining nominations. When someone is nominated, they stay nominated. They can ask people not to vote for them, but they could conceivably still be elected. Then, if they like, they could decline the office. Since apparently no formal action has been taken, there is nothing to prevent her from being on the ballot. I'm not sure I'd vote for someone that indecisive, but that's just me. 😐

I'm, reading this a bit differently, between the lines. By asking if the chair can entertain a motion to withdraw, I believe the OP is actually asking this: If a member moves the Previous Question and it is seconded, and the chair is convinced that not enough debate has occurred, can the chair, rather than stating and putting the question on the PQ, instead say, "In the opinion of the chair, cutting off debate at this point would result in an uninformed decision, since not enough debate has taken place on BOTH sides of this issue to satisfy the chair. Accordingly the chair would entertain a motion to withdraw this PQ motion. <awkward pause while staring at the mover until a withdrawal request is made> It a known practice of some presiding officers to confuse entertain with solicit. And in that case, rather than say "must" I would say "may not." The duty of the chair is to facilitate the motions that are made, not to substitute his or her own judgement for that of the assembly.

I'm not sure a regular main motion would be enough to prevent motions from the floor at the AGM. I think it might require a bylaws amendment. But I'm not prepared to delve into that. I'm afraid to ask where this motion was passed, because I suspect it may have been in a board meeting. This would be a major problem, since the board is subordinate to the membership and has no right to restrict the membership's freedom to act. But aside from all that, focusing on the specific question, the secretary has no authority to change the deadline or accept any motions after the deadline. The whole question of whether such a deadline is even allowed is a topic of its own.

Oh, I have had just that dreadful job for a substantial stint. But I think the quote of General Robert regarding the least of liberty means the opposite of what you imply. Relaxing the rules just because the drafters are inept results in less liberty, not more. My question about the preamble arises from analogy to a resolution, where the preamble, although it may contain lofty ideals, important premises, and flowery prose, is merely background material and reasons for the actual resolution. The preamble itself contains nothing enforceable. By comparison, the preamble to the US Constitution says, in essence, We the People, because <reasons> do ordain and establish this Constitution for the country. The preamble gives the reasons for the rest of the document, but it can't preëmpt any of the language in the actual document. That's why in the current context, it's in order to adopt a parliamentary authority. While the preamble may say that only the constitution and bylaws, and nothing else contains the rules, the language of the constitution says otherwise. It authorizes more rules, namely RONR. And RONR says Special Rules of Order are allowed. And that, in my view, is not preëmpted by the preamble. Edited to add: It could be preëmpted by explicit language in the bylaws prohibiting Special Rules of Order, but that would only mean that the rules in RONR could not be superseded except by amending the bylaws. And RONR itself says otherwise, and yields to special rules. By the way, in that adoption language it is intended that the word Society be replaced by, in your case, the word Party, as that is the word used by the Party to describe itself.

In 35:2(6) we find: When these motions require previous notice (as may be the case with respect to a motion to rescind or amend a provision of the bylaws or a special rule of order), such a motion cannot be amended so as to make the proposed change greater than that for which notice has been given. So it does matter what the current bylaws says, because that's the reference point by which the amount of change is measured. The proposed amendment seeks to reduce it from 1250 to 500, a reduction of 750. So the scope of the notice is a reduction of not more than 750 people. That is the change for which notice has been given. A reduction to 850 is a smaller change than reducing it to 500, and therefore remains within the scope of the previous notice. An amendment to reduce it below 500, or to increase it above 1250 would exceed the scope of notice.

I don't disagree, but I've seen it done that way more often than not, and I'd be hard pressed to find a reason to object to it, if it's customary.

Are we ignoring the fact that the statement was made in the Preamble of the constitution? Does it have the same weight as a statement placed elsewhere?

I don't know what you mean by the second sentence, or how it would affect the scope of notice. From everything you've said, the scope of notice is not exceeded at any point.

Well, you're right that this is preposterously vague. The and/or renders this unintelligible. It is either the case that any one of The president; or, the VP; or, any board member, can deem the behavioral unprofessional or it is the case that all of The president; and, the VP; and, all of the board members are required. It can't be both. I also don't know how to interpret that this shall result in possible dismissal. They shall definitely be dismissed maybe? Was the person in question removed from the function at which the alleged violation occurred?

There is no way to correctly "Call the question.: They can, instead, move the Previous Question, which requires a second, is neither debatable nor amendable, and requires a two-thirds vote for adoption. Once the chair states the motion, it is too late to withdraw it unilaterally. Besides, the process of withdrawing after seeking leave to withdraw would take longer than simply voting on ordering the previous question. If more than a third of the members wish to continue debate, they will vote No, and debate will continue. It sounds like you're allowing debate on an undebatable motion.

By that logic, the adoption of RONR is also unauthorized. If the constitution authorizes RONR--excepting any special rules of order that the Society may adopt--then the Society may adopt special rules of order. To argue otherwise is to assume that that language was put there for no reason.

Is this restriction in the bylaws? And who is granted the power to set that date? If the time is set at a board meeting, how does the secretary set the date? They can't both have that power.

Please ask your question by starting a new topic, rather than tail-ending on a three-year-old topic. Thanks!

If the previous notice stated an intent to lower the quorum from 1200 to 500, then 800 is well within those extremes. It would not exceed the scope of the notice at all. Whether non-board-members are allowed to comment or not has no effect on what is in order or not. What's striking, from the point of view of RONR is the board having the power to amend the bylaws in the first place. Do your bylaws really grant the board that extraordinary power?

In small boards, the chair normally votes along with everyone, though on roll-call votes the chair's name is customarily called last. But ties are not a situation that requires any "breaking" . When a vote requires a majority for passage, that means more Yes votes than No votes. Anything less than that, including tie votes, is less than a majority, and does not carry the motion. There's no in between, it's just an ordinary loss like any other.

In the usual case, selecting a chair is something that would require a majority vote, nothing particularly special about this. A majority vote means strictly more Yes votes than No votes, and six is greater than five. That's all there is to it, if the usual rules (those in RONR) apply. A majority does not mean 51%. It does not mean 50% +1. It means anything more than half. But if your bylaws literally say 51%, then the usual rules don't apply, and 51% is your rule. In this case, it does not matter, since 6-5 is still greater than 51%, but for future reference you need to know what your bylaws say. As my colleagues have pointed out, there are other possibilities--other possible thresholds that might apply in some cases. So it's important to know precisely what your rules say, if anything, about vote thresholds.

These matters would be covered by your bylaws, not RONR. RONR has no special method to cancel or reschedule meetings. Some questions to keep in mind: How was the date set in the first place? I.e., who has the power to set it, and does that give them the power to change it? Specifically does the board even have the power to do so? What do the rules regarding your convention say? If the board has this power, it would certainly require at least a majority vote, and might require two-thirds vote to change a prior decision. But if the date was set by the general membership, or in the bylaws, the board can't contradict that. Times of prior notice are to be found in your bylaws. RONR only says a "reasonable" time, and then only if your bylaws or other rules are silent. If rescheduling is allowed at all, it would require as many days as were needed to call the meeting in the first place, which could affect how soon you could call a rescheduled meeting.

Okay, I see why the proxy terms are being used since that's what the bylaws require. Do the bylaws authorize election by a plurality, and if not, how would a second ballot be held if necessary (no majority in the event of three candidates, say)? It sounds like members sign their own ballot proxy, making it identifiable as their vote. I'm having trouble thinking of that as a secret ballot. If I understand correctly, the Management Company knows how particular members have voted. Maybe they don't tell anyone what they know, but to be considered truly secret, they should be unable to do so; i.e., they should not know. And then they send the proxies to the election inspectors? And who are they? Are they members? Do they see the signed proxies? It may be that you're stuck with this under your current bylaws, but be aware that there are better ways. As to the process, this is why RONR advises strongly against any procedure where votes of absentees are mixed with the votes of those present. I still don't know how the president was able to see write-in votes before the votes were sent to be counted. That would see to be at odds with the description of how the proxies are handled. But in any case they were write-in votes and were not nominations, and should not have been treated as such. There was no reason to read them or reveal them to the assembly. I do not think it was proper to announce that members could change their votes. I know I said it was generally not a problem as long as vote counting had not begun, but that assumed that the ballots were still sealed. If the president had advanced knowledge of some or all of the votes, and then recommended that members change their votes, that raises some very serious questions. The best procedure would have been to just count all the votes, and treat them all the same, whether mailed in or carried in, without peeking at any of them.

Sure.

Since this is a complete revision, consideration seriatim makes sense. The other option is to consider the entire revision at one time, so that any debate or amendments are likely to be more chaotic. If they do not wish to us the preferred method, what reason should we suppose they might have?

If the replacement is voted on before the resignation takes effect, then yes. The search for a replacement can begin as soon as the resignation is submitted and accepted. It can be submitted now, accepted now, and take effect at the time specified in the language of the resignation.

Well, there really are none, because RONR does not include a mechanism for declining nominations. It does have rules for declining an office after having been elected to it, but that's a different situation. All this could have been avoided simply by not asking nominees whether or not they "accept".

I'd still like to know what your bylaws say about either proxies, or absentee ballots, or both. An absentee ballot is simply a ballot cast by someone who is not present at the meeting, and who does not vote in person. Your description of the "proxies" seems to meet the definition of an absentee ballot rather than a proxy, since they appear to serve no function other than casting of votes as directed by the member. Is there any language in the bylaws or on the "proxy" form authorizing the president, as "Proxy Agent", to cast these votes differently, say, in the event that the election goes to a second or subsequent ballot, should there be no majority choice on the first ballot? In fact, are any of these rules listed anywhere in the bylaws or Special Rules of Order? What would happen if no candidate received a majority (more than all other candidates combined) on the first ballot? Do I understand that if a ballot is returned to a member, it is returned unopened? Do I further understand that there actually are two people who can see how someone voted, or are there procedures (such as dual envelopes) in place to prevent that? If secrecy is being preserved, how did the president know that there were any write-ins? Apparently the contents of the ballots were known, and if they could not be tied to a member's name, I don't see how they could be returned. If the rules in RONR apply (and I'm not yet sure that's the case) the president was incorrect in examining the ballots before they were counted. And there's no reason he should need to, since ballots are not nominations. The write-in votes are simply write-in votes, and should be counted as such. By definition, a write-in vote is a vote for an eligible person who has not been nominated, so I don't understand the president's thought process at all. There's nothing particularly wrong with a member changing his vote as long as it's done before the count begins, while it is still possible to identify the proper ballot. But as I've noted above I don't see that any convincing motivation remains for announcing that fact.

Not far from here is the small animal hospital.

No. There is no such thing as a Proxy/Ballot. It is either a proxy or it is a ballot--in this case presumably an absentee ballot. Both proxies and absentee ballots are prohibited by RONR unless authorized in your bylaws. You don't say if they are. But since, if they aren't, the whole election is void, let's proceed as if they are authorized in your bylaws. Ideally, there would also be written rules on how to use them, so you should make sure to check. RONR advises in the strongest terms that you never use a voting method that mixes absentee votes with in-present votes. I think you can see why, based on what happened. I know what a write-in vote is, but it's not the same as a nomination. It sounds like you looked through the absentee ballots to see how they voted, and treated that like a nomination. This is completely wrong. There is such a thing as a nominating ballot, but they are used only to nominate, and different ballots are used in the election. Opening and looking through the ballots before the election was also wrong. Was the secrecy of the voters maintained in the process? I don't see how it could have been, if it were later possible for members to reclaim their ballots. How would you know which one was theirs? So everything you have described was in whole or in part incorrect. I'm sure the rest was fine.