Kim Goldsworthy

This assertion has no support within Robert's Rules of Order. Per Robert's Rules of Order, it is only after election where the consent of the electee is a factor. Before, the election, you are free to nominate any one, even celebrities, even sitting governors of your state, or even sitting presidents of the U.S., without the consent of the president, the governor, or the movie star. -- No parliamentary rule will stop you.

"Not inconsistent" is a test of a much lower level, or a test which is less stringent, than the test of "consistency" (i.e., harmony or correspondence). • For two rules to be "consistent", then the two rules must share a commonality or share a parallel, of some attribute. • For two rules to be "not inconsistent" all you need is for the two rules to be obey-able without a forced dis-obedience to the other rule. This, despite the fact that the two rules are dissimilar in every possible way. Example. Imagine two rules: 1. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor." 2. "At the annual meeting, a president shall be elected by plurality vote via secret ballot by those members present and voting." Q. Are the two rules "consistent" with each other? A. No. Why not? Because there is nothing in common, there is no common theme or unifying principle. The sentences aren't even structured the same. -- It is as if the two rules were drawn from two different documents (!), and drafted by two different authors (!). E.g., one sentence is grammatically active, one sentence is grammatically passive. E.g., one sentence is phrased in the negative (to not do X), and one sentence is phased in the positive (to do X). Q. Are the two rules "not inconsistent" with each other? Yes. The two rules can be obeyed simultaneously. There is no contradiction when executing one rule or the other rule. -- This, despite the fact that their structures, and their subject matters, are totally dissimilar.

We all are still awaiting a citation which ties: (a.) oral announcement, with (b.) anonymity. So, far all you've written is a repeat the are three essential elements (two "thou shall nots" and one "thou shall"). A page number would help. Fiat, does not help. Proof?

How contradictory. "I move that we vote in such a way as to remain anonymous. And that we expose the raw numbers so that we get a good feel of whether the two factions remained constant or proportional in their support."

"Self-evident"? No, it is definitely not self-evident. *** Just the opposite. -- (a.) Anonymity (of the ballot to the party who cast it) has nothing to do with (b.) a public announcement (of the tally). *** I will agree that a ballot vote requires that someone know the actual numbers. But a ballot vote does not imply that 100% of the members (even the members who are absent from the meeting) have an intrinsic "right" (unsuspendable!) to the tally numbers. So, the question remains: Q .What proof can you offer which suggests that the tie between one and the other is a necessary tie? Q. Is this thing a "fundamental principle"? Q. Is this thing an inalienable "right of membership"? Q. What is it?

I think there is no correlation. If a ballot vote is required via one's bylaws, then you are still free to control you minutes' content. -- Numbers or no numbers. I do not see a relationship between a.) imposing anonymity; vs. (b.) imposing compulsory numeric reporting. The tellers committee may be ordered (a.) to report more data, or (b.) to report less data. -- The assembly retains 100% control of what they want their minutes to contain, and what they want their collective ears to hear. (If there existed a stickler for the awkward interpretation that there is a relationship between one and the other, then the assembly could, theoretically, appoint 100% of the membership present to sit on the tellers committee, retroactively, and thus allow the numeric data to be re-counted, or otherwise orally communicated, without violating the bylaw-level rule directly. -- And that would be an absurd accommodation.) Q. Where is the evidence that "a paper ballot rule" or "a secrecy rule", is related to a minutes rule?

The most-essential element of a ballot vote is secrecy -- anonynimity of the voter. Put into practice, to announce a vote of 45-1, for example, risks exposing the negative voter's identity. Therefore, all parliamentary steps which sustain the most-essential element of a ballot vote -- anonymity -- would probably be in-order. *** Who would know the true numbers? The tellers committee knows the true count. -- So it isn't the case that (a.) "nobody knows the true numbers", and that (b.) "nobody is in a position to challenge an erroneous announcement of the chair." The assembly either (a.) created the tellers committee directly, or (b.) via a motion, had the opportunity to modify the composition (e.g., who sits, and how many sit), on the tellers committee. So the assembly has, in effect ultimate control on "how many people know (and can confirm) the true number tally." So the deliberative body which did the actually casting-of-ballots is still in ultimate control. *** For a special rule of order, the rule of order is suspendable. -- While you cannot violate anonymity of the ballot, you can violate the special rule of order which "prohibits the oral announcement of the tally numbers." So, the assembly retains 100% control of the special rule of order's application, and duration. -- The assembly is free to release the data to the members present, or even release the data to the general public. The assembly isn't being deprived of anything. -- They merely weighed the sanctity of (a.) something else, over (b.) the tally numbers. So: Q. Must the assembly suffer the oral announcement of the tally numbers? If the assembly wished to hear such data, all they need to do is adopt a resolution, "Resolved, That the tellers committee give a full reporting of the election results."

Wait! Just because you see a conflict, that by itself does not necessarily imply that a correction is necessary. For example, if you have a "mission statement" embedded in your bylaws, and your adopted motion seems to be at odds with the mission statement, that conflict is not necessarily one where a fix is necessary. It all depends on the kind of conflict. -- Perhaps your interpretation is wrong? Perhaps the motion is merely variation, and not a true conflict, of the given bylaw rule?

krishna Reddy, You failed to post the METHOD OF AMENDMENT of your constitution & bylaws. That is where you find the authority, or lack of authority, regarding who gets to amend what. Q. Are your constitution & bylaws silent regarding a method of amendment? -- E.g., is notice required? E.g., is a vote of a quantity greater than a majority vote required? Etc.

Once time passes beyond the original presentation of minutes, there is no workaround that the secretary (or some authorized party) will have to duplicate the language, namely: (a.) once in the minutes were the motion was made, because it is a main motion (and, assuming it was adopted); (b) once in the document targeted. This would apply to committee reports, as well -- any document which is to be edited well-after the original date of presentation. -- A month? A year?

Answer: YES. Since you confirm that the authorization is real, then the president's actions (in accordance with the adopted motion) is appropriate. *** A nay-sayer, a skeptic, who was not at the meeting of interest, will argue that the action was illegitimate, since the minutes show no such motion. That is a different question: Q. Are the minutes accurate? As long as the majority of the members approve (and/or amend) the minutes eventually, then the president is not at risk. If a majority of the members assert that the gap in the minutes is proof of the president's exceeding of authority, then the president has no recourse. -- The minutes (or the lack thereof) will be one piece of evidence that the president exceeded his authority. THAT is why accurate minutes are important. -- People are relying on minutes as the sole proof of authorization. *** But, again, per Robert's Rules of Order, one does not have to have minutes at all to act on a motion which was properly adopted. You don't have to wait for minutes to be generated, never mind approved, to take action. (Indeed, all elections are acted upon immediately. No one waits for minutes' approval to find out if their vote last month "took" or not.)

Q. How does one "withdraw" an adopted motion? -- which is already executed? What page in RONR supports this notion? You cannot amend it. You cannot rescind it. Therefore, what can you do with it?

• The party is out, as of December 31, and there is no way to stop this from happening. Q. Is that your interpretation of page 308?

Page 308 letter C assumes that the resignation is one which has no conditions, or which has no future effective date. Page 308 assumes a resignation is an unconditional resignation. -- No conditions. *** If a resignation has multiple conditions, (like 2 or 3 or 4 scenarios), and one of the conditions fails, then the resignation never takes place. (Think of the example, "If I land a new job out of state, then I must resign as treasurer. I will know by December 31st if I am hired.") If the "resignation" never takes place (if the crucial condition is false), then the adoption of the resignation will have removed no one from anything. You won't have an effective resignation until the deadline arrives, and 100% of the conditions are confirmed as being true. (The main motion may be worded akin to: "That the resignation or Mr. Smith be accepted, contingent on Mr. Smith's employment situation changing by December 31st." -- Q. If Mr. Smith is rejected by the employer by November, is the board forbidden to rescind this main motion? Will Mr. Smith no longer be treasurer beyond December 31st?) **** In such a case, those who argue otherwise must argue that the board (or party responsible for accepting resignations) cannot re-negotiate the multiple conditions, prior to the effective date. And that does not make sense, since you truly have un-executed parts of an adopted motion, and, perhaps, two parties both willing to negotiate the conditions anew. Since no one has been removed from office, there would be no parliamentary way to re-elect or re-appoint the person to the same position prior to the deadline. And that makes no sense.

You have a bizarre subtraction-of-vote rule. But I think you know that. *** Robert's Rules of Order says that you may "violate" fundamental principles of parliamentary law by amending one's constitution or bylaws. No lesser level rule will suffice. And, per your own post, you have confirmed that your organization has done exactly that. -- They have indeed amended their own constitution/bylaws to allow for subtraction of votes. So, there is nothing within Robert's Rules to draw from to overturn any kind of "subtraction of votes". *** Q. What Article of the U.S. Constitution do you think has been violated? I don't think you will find one, because the Constitution's rules are mostly for federal government and state governments. There are few Constitutional rules which apply to individuals, and those rules won't help individuals who are part of a voluntary organization. The voluntary organization may amend its own documents of authority however bizarrely it wishes.

The Book fails to address such things as "conditional resignations" and "future effective date" resignations. So there won't be any explicit page to cite. *** But we can apply parliamentary principles for other future actions. For example, If the board adopts a motion, "That the final day for submitting a raffle ticket for the Easter drawing shall be Wednesday April 30," then the board is still free to meet prior to April 30 and free to Amend Something Previously Adopted and move the date, either forward or back. Why is this allowed? Because April 30 is not yet here, and the deadline is therefore not yet recognized as invalidating anything. It is unexecuted. *** Similarly for a resignation: If the board meets before the date of the future date's finality of a resignation, and if the party resigning changes his mind, then the board may Amend Something Previously Adopted, or Rescind, the submitted resignation's date. (You cannot force a resignation upon an unwilling party. You must use the disciplinary procedures to remove a party from the position. -- Unless the position is trivial, like a committee position, or a non-fixed term-of-office.)

Think of it this way: • If the problem at hand is solved by action X; and if action X is impossible, then you will have to live with a compromise action, until time passes and you can re-align your overall process with the proper procedure in your bylaws. *** I assume that the "proper" solution is not likely (i.e., to meet again as a full assembly, to hear the results of the vote, and possibly raise a Point of Order against the result). If you cannot do that, then you have an unsolvable problem. All you can do with an unsolvable problem is wait it out, and get back in line at election time.

Whatever bylaws apply at that moment will tell you whether that is possible. • So, if there are no bylaws, then the person in charge remains in charge. • So, if there are bylaws, then the defined term-of-office of the officers will likely dictate how "easy" it is to remove a sitting officer. -- Or other clause in the bylaws which empower/cripple the rights and powers of all parties concerned. *** Q. Do you have bylaws? Will you have bylaws by then?

It is FALSE.

A "committee" is not a "board". You have a customized rule which lists two committees, (and no more than two committees), which do not allow spouses. Any third committee, or any board, commission, or council, is therefore not under that particular restraint.

From the original poster's two posts, I fear that the original poster is not acquainted with the motions: (a.) point of order (b.) appeal (c.) request for information (d.) parliamentary inquiry *** I would suggest that the original poster read up on these four kinds of "interruptions", and pick the best motion for the original poster's purpose. (I don't know which one is best, since the chair's utterances may have been in response to a question, and not a true parliamentary "ruling". -- Or may have been an expression of exasperation. -- Who knows?)

Okay, I'll bite. Q. What was "wrong" with the old-style of selection? Q. What was the method of the old-style of selection? -- e.g., majority vote? lottery? seniority? first come, first served? *** Robert's Rules of Order won't contain "qualifications for office". So no page citation will help you choose a philosophy of selection. You can select via any possible method, if you choose to reject "majority vote", and leave parliamentary procedure out of the equation. ("Trial by combat" has a 1,000 year history supporting its application. And it isn't Robertian in nature.)

When a nominating committee is tied, the committee reports out that fact, and leaves the rest to the assembly. e.g., "The committee could not agree upon a single candidate for the office of X." *** >> They do not want to slate two candidates in the position if possible. The committee is to "slate" no one. They are tied. They make no recommendation, either way. There is no penalty, as far as Robert's Rules goes, for a Nom. Comm. to not agree upon a single candidate for a given office.

>> In the event of a vacancy or no candidacy occurring in any office, other than the President, the remainder of that term of office will be served by a person >> elected by a majority vote of the remaining Board members. >> The motion that was passed at the previous meeting was >> to open nominations for the vacant position of secretary. *** So far, these two steps do not necessarily contradict each other. *** I'm not too crazy about the "... hold an election ..." part, though. The board must do this latter action, not the general membership.

See Section 30, "Motions relating to methods of voting and the polls" (page 283). On page 286, under the paragraph "Closing or re-opening the polls", The Book says that the polls can be re-opened by majority vote. There is your answer. If you had a majority vote to open the polls or re-open the polls, then no rule of Robert's Rules of Order will have been violated.