Gary Novosielski

But that should not be taken as an indication that the authorship team is in any way opposed to the practice.

Yep, you've got it.

Not disagreeing, but: The simplest way is to simply use the terms: majority vote two-thirds vote three-fourths vote If there are multiple types of meetings, you can add: "...at a meeting of the <congregation / board / etc.>" If you are truly concerned that this would be misinterpreted, and that showing the definitions in RONR would not convince the doubters, you can use the terms: majority of those present and voting two-thirds of those present and voting three-fourths of those present and voting. The quick way of deciding these votes is: majority: More Yes votes than No votes (tie votes reject the motion) two-thirds: At least twice as many Yes votes as No votes three-fourths: At least three times as many Yes votes as No votes. Abstentions have no effect on the result--only Yes and No votes are counted or called for.

The president may appoint a new Tellers' Committee, or keep the one that was in place. The membership certainly should not be kept in the dark. They are in charge of deciding all questions relating to their own elections. They should not be "told" what is happening. They should be "asked" for permission to do what is proposed. The time limit is flexible as long as the secretary has kept the ballots under seal and can vouch for their integrity. If your bylaws allow it, then at a meeting of the membership, the chair can announce the offices and names who are elected by acclamation--no voice vote is needed or appropriate if the bylaws allow acclamation. If a recount is done and any candidates do not receive a majority (more votes than the competition combined) then additional ballot(s) should be done. Nominations may be reopened if desired between rounds of balloting. It's not really a new election, it's completing the current election properly. Except for those offices filled by acclamation, the membership is not simply told who won. The tellers' report for each office must be read by the chair and included in the minutes, following this form: [See 45:37] TELLERS’ REPORT Number of votes cast……97 Necessary for election (majority)……49 Mr. Miller received……51 Mr. Wilson received……24 Mr. Strong received……14 Illegal Votes: Mr. Friend (ineligible)……7 Two ballots for Mr. Wilson folded together, rejected……1 If multiple rounds of balloting are required, this report must be provided to the voters between rounds as well, so they have information enough to decide whether to change their next vote.

The bath is simply a tub of hot water, but two officers can certainly bathe together without violating any rule in RONR--usually outside the context of a meeting.

<never mind>

Well, as I said earlier, I don't believe they can. By that description they do not appear to be in the nature of committees. They appear to be independent organizations that are affiliated with the council, but not established by the council. Or, if they are committees of the council, they have an extraordinarily independent relationship. At this point I'm not sure what the question is, or perhaps it's been answered?

Good question. This person/committee is clearly not assigned a single task that would end when it rises and reports. On the other hand, I think establishing a standing committee would require at least a Special Rule of Order. Stay tuned for other replies.

I don't think there was anything wrong with the question. Just be as clear as you can, and you should be fine. Quoting the text is up to you. If you just cite the paragraph, the regulars here can all look it up, but having it right there can save time. We will often quote some of the text in our answers especially when it's clear that the questioner doesn't (yet) have a copy of RONR or RONRIB. P.S. Welcome!

I concur with the previous responses. I would add that it's important that the draft minutes are clearly marked as a =DRAFT=, either as a background watermark, or via header/footer notation. It's not a rule in RONR, but it will save you from many a headache.

I don't disagree with it, but I haven't seen language either. It could probably go either way--especially if the records for past attendance are questionable.

Normally that section should be titled New Business. But even if there is no such section, members can make motions on other than agenda items once all the agenda items have been disposed of and before the meeting is adjourned. That's the general rule, but the devil is doubtless in the details you didn't include in your question. 🙂 Consult RONR (12th ed.) 41:5-6 to see if agendas are truly appropriate for your organization.

The president does not even have the right to attend a committee meeting uninvited, without being a member, either ex-officio or by specific appointment, much less take it over and start issuing commands. The president has no dictatorial powers, unless your bylaws grant them. It might be appropriate to consider censure or other discipline to emphasize this fact. However, the committee member who was being loud and disrespectful, if issuing personal attacks rather than debating the merits of a proposal, should have been called to order by the committee chair or other member of the committee. But he cannot be disciplined by the committee itself. The committee would need to take that up with the parent body of the committee.

In general yes, but if the bylaw in question has language that provides for its own suspension, then that is allowed. Also, a rule placed in the bylaws that is properly in the nature of a rule of order (i.e. relating to the orderly conduct of business within a meeting) may be suspensible if it steers clear of some additional pitfalls. Refer to 25:7-13 for information on what rules may not be suspended. And check the references you find within those paragraphs as well. If you describe the bylaw that you're interested in suspending, we may be able to give you more specifics.

Were the original ballots truly secret? And were any of the offices won or lost by one vote, so that the one illegal vote could have affected the result? Do you still have the original tellers' report from that original ballot? If not, have the tellers placed the ballots in the custody of the secretary, who has kept them under seal, so that a recount can be done? You cannot be certain of how the non-eligible voter cast their vote. If you ask them and they are not truthful, that would effectively give them two votes. Without proof, you would have no way of being certain what adjustment is appropriate. For any offices where the change of one vote would change the outcome, that election should be declared null and void. But ultimately the decision on how to resolve these issues, and any other questionable matters rests with the assembly whose election this is. The Teller Chair and Parliamentarian erred in making decisions that should have been brought to the assembly for their judgement.

No. Are the vote counts of each round of balloting announced as required? That's an essential part of the process. Also, in the interval between ballots, candidates may voluntarily withdraw, and nominations can be reopened to add candidates (though that might appear counterproductive, it often proves not to be).

If no proviso regarding the effective date is included in the motion, or in the text of the amendment, then it takes effect as soon as the result of the vote is announced by the chair. I'm not sure why attendance records from prior years would enter into it. Does the language of the amendment seek to make it retroactive?

I have no idea. Those isolated quotes don't tell me much, and the first one seems close to gibberish: I can't make any sense out of that. If your bylaws are unclear or ambiguous, you will have to interpret them for yourselves in some way that makes sense, and then begin the task of revising them to say what you mean them to say. RONR does not have "classes" of members. It is perfectly fine for your group to have them simply by defining them in the bylaws. But you'll also have make sure that these classes are clearly defined, as well as what their rights and duties are, and how their votes are counted, because RONR won't have anything to say about them.

The election is a complete mess. Ballots that are secret cannot be marked with a number that can be traced back to the voter, if that's what you meant by a "roll call". None of that type of ballot should be counted. If the vote of that single non-member could have affected the outcome either way, then the entire election must be re-done. But there are apparently larger issues here. A ballot that is not secret is not valid. Members need to stop asking for a secret ballot and start demanding that the rules be followed. First of all, voting by electronic or absentee means is not allowed unless your bylaws explicitly allow it. If it is allowed, for a "ballot vote" the method used must assure anonymity for the voter. If it does not, then it cannot be used. The fact that one person can see all the votes, and that that one person happens to be the president is particularly scandalous. Do you have regular meetings of the general membership? If so, a Point of Order could be raised that the election was invalid for what looks like a half-dozen different reasons, and should be declared null and void. Then someone should actually read RONR's rules on how to conduct elections, on paper ballots without identifying numbers, and make sure the tellers understand the rules. Part of the problem seems to be trying to control the handling and distribution of ballots. That makes sense on its face, but it puts the emphasis in the wrong place. Remember that blank pieces of paper can be valid as ballots. Your procedures should be designed in such a way that if piles of blank ballots were available to everyone, the security of the vote can be assured. This means strict control on people casting their ballots--that each ballot cast is verified as being cast by a valid voter; that each voter votes only once; that each ballot is folded twice so that multiple ballots can't be folded into one without being detected, and so on. All this is covered in RONR §46. In my view, the membership needs to take their rights as members seriously, and if the current president isn't up to the task of preserving those rights, get one who is. Or they can decide to just chill and relax and adopt a don't-worry-be-happy attitude about elections and their leadership. That works in some societies. But I don't see how you can have it both ways.

And I guess I'm not going to get it.

What sort of an organization are we talking about here? You seem to be talking about board meetings, rather than general membership meetings. By "a motion in place" do you mean that there is a Special Rule of Order that all votes are by roll-call? Or is it in your bylaws? Or some other type of motion? Obviously if a member moves for a ballot vote, and that motion is adopted, it would not be possible to record who voted for or against the motion. The vote counts can and should be recorded. But exactly which rule trumps which depends on facts we don't have, especially in what document the rules appear. Please describe your situation, and your question, more fully. Thanks.

No that text is not from Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised 12th edition. It's quite obvious from the statement: I serve as parliamentarian at several conventions that meet with thousands of delegates attending each year. Clearly a first-person description of what some parliamentarian has done would not appear in the actual book. It is an opinion that someone wrote about the book. What it says, though is generally true. In smaller groups less formal rules are often possible. But some people have used that general principle as an excuse to ignore the rules. That's not the same thing as less formal rules. Even when using what RONR refers to as "small board rules" there are still rules, and nobody is given authoritarian powers.

I get your point, but recall that in this case the board was suspected of intent to implement their desired change(s) without even going to the membership, so an increased measure of vigilance would be in order, I think.

Beware of people who claim that RONR is "just a guide line". This reveals an intent to ignore the rules whenever they become inconvenient. When RONR says something that helps them, it s rule. When it says something that keeps them in check, it's "just a guide line".

Agreeing with my colleagues, I would add that another misconception about this motion is that it can interrupt a speaker. It most certainly cannot. So one does not "call for the question". One waits for the speaker to finish, seeks recognition from the chair, and if and when recognized, says "I move the Previous Question." As noted, a second, and two-thirds approval is necessary, otherwise discussion on the (previous) question continues. It is also in order to move the Previous Question when one already has the floor and has spoken in debate, if the rules in RONR apply, but this has been known to draw looks of disapproval by some.