Greg Goodwiller, PRP

Assuming your rules simply say "a majority vote," then yes. A majority vote, unless qualified somehow in your rules means "of those present and voting." So even if only two voted yes, and one voted no, it would be a majority vote. And as long a quorum was present, the vote would be valid. 

If the motion was disposed of (either approved or disapproved), someone who voted on the prevailing side (for the motion if it was adopted, against the motion if it was defeated), may move to reconsider. The motion must be seconded and requires a majority vote to "re-open" debate on the motion. And there are other characteristics of the motion - including that in some cases it may be made at one time in the meeting, and taken up at another time. The motion's characteristics are Section 37 in RONR, beginning on page 315.

If the necessary requirements are not met, it may be moved to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted, assuming the motion was, in fact, adopted. That is Section 35 in RONR, beginning on page 315. It has a higher voting requirement, but be made by a member regardless of how they voted. 

If the motion was defeated, unless a motion to Reconsider is adopted, it cannot be taken up again at the same session. 

I think that probably comes down to the wording of your bylaws. Can you give us some direct quotes from the bylaws about the requirements?

What the 11th Edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR) says about email voting is on pages 424-5. It is essentially a particular kind of voting by mail - which must be authorized in an assembly's bylaws (although some states have a statute that mandates it). 

When authorized in the bylaws, such voting is generally not for the purpose of holding a meeting where motions can be made and/or debated - because email is simply a voting method, not a form of a meeting (or "deliberative assembly," as my colleague noted). Such a provision in bylaws or statutes is often titled "Action Between Meetings," and the provision generally includes a statement about how the action will be recorded (such as, that it will be reported by the Secretary at the next regular meeting and entered into the minutes as an action taken between meetings).

In any such scenario, no motion for the previous question could be made, because the setting is only a vote, not a meeting, and no discussion is allowed anyway.

There is no rule in Robert's Rules against family members serving together on the same board. That is completely a matter for associations to decide for themselves based on their circumstances.

While I agree with Mr. Martin's analysis, I would add one caveat, which is that under the rules for small boards, discussion is allowed while no motion is pending. So it would be helpful to know whether or not the "democratic assembly" in question is in fact a board, or a membership meeting, and if so, what is its size?

First of all, resolutions are only motions if they are moved. So whoever offers the resolution may move that it be adopted. The adoption of a motion does not require that the motion "lead to any action." Motions can simply be statements of an association's position on a matter.

You can amend your bylaws to authorize electronic meetings.

I would note that "unfinished business" does not necessarily indicate the "debate has begun,"  as member Elsman has stated. It may mean that the item was simply not reached at the previously meeting. In that case, I do not think that a a motion objecting to consideration would be out of order.

Thank you, sir. I will study this with great interest.

Greg

George:

I hope he can be enticed to re-post it or something, as it would be very challenging to make such a series of meetings fit the RONR definition of a single meeting.

Bylaw requirements for holding an office cannot be "waived." Requirements in the bylaws are placed there intentionally." You may, of course, amend you bylaws appropriately to allow for your candidate to meet the bylaw requirements. 

First of all, the interpretation of bylaws is ultimately the responsibility of the assembly itself. That said, here is what those statements mean to me. "Standing committees" are committees that are named in your bylaws. And the statement says that the President names those who serve on those committees - with the "advice and approval" of the Board of Directors.

Then it says that the President and Secretary are ex officio (meaning by virtue of office) members of those committees. So although the President doesn't name them, they are automatically members of all standing committees.

Then it says that when members of the association decide in a meeting to create a special committee (a non-permanent committee appointed to carry out some specific purpose), it can also - presumably in the motion creating the committee - name its members; however, if it doesn't do so, then the President appoints them.

At the top of all pages in the main part of the RONR text, you will see the "§" symbol (that means paragraph or section), and a number. So on page 168, you see not only §13 at the top, but on line 1, you see the beginning of that section: §13 Commit or Refer. Elsewhere in the document, a bold number 13 in parentheses is referring you to the discussion of that motion in section 13.

Rob:

you are correct about the effect. But I would argue that there are times when such a standard is appropriate. For example, it is the standard for a finding of guilt in our denomination’s constitution - which can result in the removal of ordination and/or church membership. Our belief is that if two thirds of the members of the court that tried the case are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the minister’s guilt, then the verdict must be “not guilty.”

Since "these Bylaws" specify RONR as the parliamentary authority, I would make that assumption; however, as we often note in this forum, RONR also makes it clear that the interpretation of bylaws is ultimately the responsibility of the members of the assembly.

Are you perhaps watching the House Judiciary Committee hearing this morning, where that just happened?

The obvious point of the "maneuver," as you call it, was to keep from debating the appeal. RONR makes it clear that such is not the purpose of the motion; however, RONR isn't the parliamentary authority for the House of Representatives, and regardless, since the Chair accepted the motion and no one objected, it stood.

In RONR, a “session” Of an assembly may be composed of a single meeting, or a series of meetings. If, for example, an annual convention of an organization meets for a week, each day may have multiple meetings, so that the entire session might be composed of maybe a dozen meetings.

In that case, it would not be inappropriate to say that the assembly was “in session,” even if a meeting was not currently being held.

I suggest you read more of what the bylaws say about this committee, and it’s meetings/sessions.

5 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

That's the way I read it, but others have disagreed.

I disagree - on the basis of RONR pg. 440, ll. 14-17, which states, "The assembly is free, however, to elect the same person to another office on a subsequent ballot, unless the bylaws prohibit a person from holding both offices simultaneously."

That's not specifically about a chair and a secretary, but in writing bylaws for organizations, I always try to be clear about which offices may and may not be combined.

2 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

It is not proper according to RONR. There are likely laws that affect the way this Board operates, including its own bylaws; they may allow this (but I doubt it).

Under RONR, if the Mayor voted on the prevailing side, he or she could move to Reconsider the vote. If not, then a motion to Rescind could be made at the next meeting.

However, also in accordance with RONR, the "clerk" announcing the vote count is not the same thing as the presiding officer declaring the result. If instead of declaring the result the mayor instead "tabled" the motion - and no one objected by rising to a point of order - then that is the action that stands, and it is too late to do so at the next meeting.

The point is that the RONR standard for most motions is a majority of those "present and voting;" therefore, if anyone chooses not to vote, their abstention from voting doesn't affect the outcome.. 

In addition to what my colleague has said, I think a resolution composed and signed by multiple members can be submitted, the adoption of which is then moved by one member and seconded by another.

I must disagree with my colleague about email meetings. I personally think they should only be used for unanimous consent motions - authorized in a clearly defined article in the bylaws. In reality, many states require it for non-profit corporations.

I work quite a bit with electronic meetings, including the development of rules for such meetings, and I also recommend that the rules adopted for electronic meetings cover what to do with the technology fails to facilitate the meeting whatever the reason. That's why special rules of order exist in the first place. 

Agreeing with "Guest Who's . . .", 

With that motion defeated, a different motion  would then be in order. It could be "that the application be accepted,"  but under the circumstances, it would probably be more helpful to move that it be either postponed indefinitely (which kills it, if adopted) or that it be referred (which allows the committee to which it is referred to figure out how to bring back a motion that a majority will support).

Here is the relevant passage from RONR:

"Action on the Financial Report. No action of acceptance by the assembly is required—or proper—on a financial report of the treasurer unless it is of sufficient importance, as an annual report, to be referred to auditors. In the latter case it is the auditors' report which the assembly accepts." (RONR pg. 479, ll. 5-9).

The point is that "accepting" an unaudited financial report can have the effect of accepting something as valid that an expert has not so verified. We aren't attorneys, here, but our attorneys tell us that is a bad thing with respect to liability. After hearing or reviewing financial reports, I say something like, "are there any questions? Hearing none, thank you, madam treasurer, the report is filed for audit."