Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Greg Goodwiller, PRP

Members
  • Posts

    392
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Greg Goodwiller, PRP

  1. Robert's Rules (RONR), in its section on elections, states that "an election to an office become final immediately if the candidate is present and does not decline, or if he is absent but has consented to his candidacy" (RONR pg. 444, ll. 18-20). It further states, "An officer-elect takes possession of his office immediately upon his election's becoming final, unless the bylaws or other rules specify a later time" (RONR pg. 444, ll. 28-30). I don't see anything in your bylaws that would change that. So whenever you hold the elections during your annual meeting is when the new officers take over. For that reason, most organizations either hold the elections at the beginning of the meeting (if they want the new officers to run the annual meeting) or at the end of the meeting (if they want the outgoing officers to run the annual meeting).
  2. It sounds as though the Board had some pressing matter to handle in Executive Session, and that it chose to handle that business at the beginning of its "regular meeting." In and of itself, I don't think that decision violates what you have quoted from the society's bylaws. Impolite, perhaps, but not a violation, unless there are other bylaws dealing with conducting business in Executive Session, or affecting the order or conduct of business.
  3. RONR pg. 486, ll. 13-19 states: GENERAL PROCEDURE. The executive board of an organized society operates under the society's bylaws, the society's parliamentary authority, and any special rules of order or standing rules of the society which may be applicable to it. Such a board may adopt its own special rules of order or standing rules only to the extent that such rules do not conflict with any of the rules of the society listed above.
  4. I think perhaps you should restate the Town Manager's action. If an individual is "recused" from a meeting, it means that they are not in attendance - and therefore their absence does, indeed, affect the presence of a quorum. But if the Town Manager was present and the meeting and chose not to vote (even if asking that it be recorded in the minutes), that is not a recusal, but rather an abstention. Abstentions, unlike recusals, do not affect the quorum. Those who abstain from voting are exercising a right of membership. They are not in any way being derelict in their duties.
  5. Ok. So can Guest Denise clarify what she means by "electronic voting?"
  6. Hieu, where do you find that requirement? Electronic meetings must be authorized in an organization's bylaws, but why is electronic voting is taken up in a different secion. "Machine or Electronic Voting" is a sub-section (on page 419 in RONR) within a larger section in RONR titled "Other Methods of Voting," which begins with the statement, "in contrast to the methods of voting mentioned in the preceding subsection, the voting methods described below are used only when expressly ordered by the assembly or prescribed by its rules" (RONR pg. 412, ll. 8-10).
  7. First of all, in accordance with RONR, #1 and #2 are not part of the Order of business, but preliminary to it. Second, Secretaries have no authority to "declare" anything. They only advise the presiding officer. So you might consider wording such as: "Once the Chairman has determined that a quorum is present and has called the meeting to order:" (then list the items in the order of business) As background, I am both a parliamentarian and a Presbyterian minister. In our national constitution, it is a requirement that all congregational meetings be opened and closed with prayer. You might want to consider whether such a practice (or some other, depending on your particular faith tradition) is appropriate. RONR considers and sanctions such activities as opening and/or closing ceremonies. Otherwise, your order looks appropriate and in accordance with RONR to me.
  8. I concur with my colleague. You are essentially attempting to apply parliamentary terminology to settings which do not qualify as parliamentary settings. So I agree with your first statement that your company's rules should result in a deliberative assembly being convened to make the decision. It is unfortunate that the company doesn't give some guidance as to how that should occur. Their rules could be amended, for example, to state that a meeting for such a decision shall be convened whenever requested by at least one employee, with the most senior employee in the chair, and the next most senior employee as secretary, and the meeting shall be run in accordance with the most recent edition of Robert's Rules of Order.
  9. I concur with the previous comments from Godelfan. A deliberative assembly is a gathering of individuals where all can at the very least hear each other, and discuss the matters being decided. That is not a matter of "'strict' formalities of a formal meeting." It is the most basic requirement for what constitutes a meeting. And a vote taken without the opportunity for common deliberation is in no way the action of a "deliberative assembly." Schedule and hold a meeting. Since you have no rules to follow anyway, make it a conference call if you need to. But make sure everyone has an opportunity to attend. Elect a presider and a secretary. Then have someone present make a motion, discuss it, and vote. If at that point there are more "yes" votes than "no" votes, the motion is adopted. If there are equal numbers of votes, or if there are more "no" votes than "yes" votes, the motion fails.
  10. In order to determine a majority vote that is in any way in accordance with Robert's Rules of Order (RONR), your workers would need to hold an actual meeting, to which all the workers are invited. Someone would need to be elected to preside at the meeting, and someone else would need to be elected to serve as the secretary and take minutes. This would be in the nature of what RONR calls a "mass meeting." RONR specifically notes that such meetings "frequently operate with no formally adopted rules, upon the assumption that the meeting will proceed according to the common parliamentary law . . ." (RONR pg. 546, ll. 1-4). At such a meeting, common parliamentary law would hold that the vote of a majority of those present and voting would constitute a majority vote of the assembly.
  11. Pending, or course, anything in your own bylaws regarding how the Manual is to be amended.
  12. But also, look closely at what your bylaws say about officers' terms. If they say (as RONR suggests), that officers serve for a term of X years "or until their successors are elected," then the failure to elect a replacement means that "former" officer remains in office for now.
  13. So, it sounds as though you have an "established custom" of allowing the President and committee chairs to select committee members. Here is what RONR says about customs: "In some organizations, a particular practice may sometimes come to be followed as a matter of established custom so that it is treated practically as if it were prescribed by a rule. If there is no contrary provision in the parliamentary authority or written rules of the organization, the established custom should be adhered to unless the assembly, by a majority vote, agrees in a particular instance to do otherwise. However, if a customary practice is or becomes in conflict with the parliamentary authority or any written rule, and a Point of Order (23) citing the conflict is raised at any time, the custom falls to the ground, and the conflicting provision in the parliamentary authority or written rule must thereafter be complied with. If it is then desired to follow the former practice, a special rule of order (or, in appropriate circumstances, a standing rule or a bylaw provision) can be added or amended to incorporate it" (RONR pg. 19). RONR is basically silent on the appointment of committee members, except to define the various ways that they can be appointed or elected. So I see no reason that you cannot continue your usual practice. That said, it would be better to place that procedure in your bylaws. As for question number 1, assuming you are talking about standing committees, there is no such rule in RONR, but either your own defined rules or your established custom should be followed.
  14. I'm not asking anything. For the sake of better understanding, I'm always willing to contemplate not just what the rule is, but on what principle(s) the rule is based. The original post didn't ask what the rule is, it asked why the rule is what it is, which is the question I attempted to answer.
  15. I would turn this around and ask it in reverse . . . Since debating motions is a right of membership (see RONR pg. 3, ln. 4), debate of motions should only be limited for some legitimate purpose. So the question is, what legitimate reason would there be for not allowing debate on that motion? The fact that it isn't controversial (most of the time) does not seem to me to justify such a limitation. Rather, it might be a good justification for the presiding officer to ask for unanimous consent and not belabor the matter.
  16. Robert's Rules (RONR), on page 492, states, "In an assembly or organization that has not prescribed in its bylaws or rules how the members of its committees shall be selected, the method can be decided by unanimous consent or by majority vote at the time the committee is appointed, as described on page 174, lines 11–20; or (in the case of a special committee) the method can be specified in the motion to establish the committee. The power to appoint a committee carries with it the power to appoint the chairman and to fill any vacancy that may arise in the committee." So first, check the Board's bylaws to see if anything is expressly stated. There may well be different procedures for "standing committees" (permanent committees whose membership may change from year to year, or term to term) and "special committees," which are appointed for a specific purpose and which cease to exist when that purpose has been accomplished, or their time has expired, or the assembly has acted to take their assigned task(s) back out of their hands. These are the committees whose members are typically named as part of the motion that created the committee, although some organizations leave the "appointment" of committee members to the President or some other person or persons. But in any case, RONR defines five distinct ways that organizations may appoint individuals to committees (pp. 493-496): election by ballot, nominations from the floor, nominations by the chair, appointment by the chair, appointment by adoption of a motion naming members of a committee.
  17. How difficult would it be to amend your bylaws? It can usually be done at a special meeting, and may or may not require lengthy notice, multiple readings, or other requirements that slow the process. We can point you to appropriate provisions to propose.
  18. So then, my interpretation of your bylaw excerpt would be that the Church Council appoints someone to serve until the next Annual Meeting, at which time the congregation elects someone (who may well be the one temporarily appointed) to complete what remains of the original three year term.
  19. It only changes if the bylaws/constitution explicitly define the change. If they don't, then the regular rules apply.
  20. I disagree. Think of it in reverse. It only required more than 1/4 to keep it from being adopted in the first place. After the fact, it requires a two thirds vote, a majority with notice, or a majority of the entire membership to rescind it. That is "something more" than would have been necessary to keep it from being adopted in the first place. So it meets the standard.
  21. Yes. A majority vote with notice - assuming the meeting is within a quarterly time period, and regardless of the vote required to adopt the motion in the first place. The only exception is a constitution or bylaws that state their own requirements for amendment.
  22. The only officials whose right to debate is limited by Robert's Rules are the presiding officer and the parliamentarian.
  23. Absolutely. The right to vote is inherently also the right not to vote.
  24. Having watched the video, I disagree. Although it's a bit chaotic, the truth is, I've been in meetings that were much, much worse. And it appears to me that Administrator was just trying to rescue the body from a speaker who was going on much too long, in a setting where no one could do anything about it (he was allowed, as noted above, to occupy the only lecturn at the front of the room). The chair seemed pretty clueless, but at the same time, the gentleman with objections didn't actually attempt to move anything. He just announced that he "had some amendments" - at which time there was an audible groan in the hall. These folks seem to be located in the Pittsburgh area. Maybe you should reach out to them!
×
×
  • Create New...