Rob Elsman

No, Mr. Novosielski, the membership roll should be checked off when the ballot is issued to the member at the poll to prevent the secretary from sending a second ballot to the same member in the mail. It must be remembered that a member is free to put his blank ballot in his pocket and walk out of the polling place without casting it, but doing so should not entitle him to a second ballot through the mail.

Is there more to this than has been told so far? Specifically, what is the source of the delegation of authority for the executive board or the president to obtain and install this new lock? If there isn't any, then the sole authority would rest with the general membership assembly.

This post is an excellent exposition of the impossible situation that arises when some votes are cast at a meeting and others are submitted by mail. Nevertheless, when authorized in the bylaws, the only fair way to proceed with the consideration of bylaw amendments (previous notice having been properly given) at the special meeting (called for the purpose) is complicated. At the meeting, debate and allowable amendment should proceed, as usual. When the question is put, however, members at the meeting should line up at a polling station to receive a paper ballot and an unmarked envelope. The membership roll should be checked off as each ballot and envelope is issued. These voters should each complete their ballot and seal it within the unmarked envelope. The sealed envelopes should be deposited into a locked ballot box. When the poll is closed, the locked box should be given to the secretary for custody under lock--preferably having been sealed, itself, by the president or sergeant at arms. The secretary should then send identical ballots, unmarked envelopes, and outer return envelopes to each member who did not receive a ballot at the special meeting. These voters should complete their ballots, seal them in the unmarked envelopes, and mail them in the return envelopes to the secretary before a reasonable deadline--as adopted at the meeting and instructed. Several days after the deadline for returning ballots by mail, the tellers should convene and open the [sealed] locked box and mix the unmarked envelopes with those that have been received in the mail and already separated from the outer envelopes by the secretary before opening each unmarked envelope, scrutinizing the ballot, and recording the vote. The tallying should proceed, as usual, and the tellers report and announcement of the result of the vote should occur at the next regular meeting, as usual. There might be an alternative method to proceed using electronic voting that would occur after all members (attending and absentee) were notified of the question after debate had closed. Under this procedure, debate would close, and all members would receive a notice of the putting of the question and a reasonable time within which to cast a vote by electronic means. The votes would be tallied after the polls closed. The tellers report and announcement of the result of the vote would be announced at the next regular meeting. Anybody else have an idea?

The nastiness is occurring outside the context of a business meeting, so parliamentary law does not have much to do with this. I assume his nastiness will become an issue in the next election, should he be nasty and stand for another term. Meanwhile, be generous with your use of the Delete button

There is no need to change the bylaws. Nominations are not absolutely necessary to complete an election. When there are no nominations, the election should proceed by ballot. The electors should write in their choice for each office that is being filled. As always, it may require multiple rounds of voting. Wear your onesies and bring your favorite stuffed animal; the meeting may be protracted.

Of course, when bylaws are written and adopted, they should be completely clear and complete. When some are arguing one way, and some are arguing another way, it is a clear sign that an amendment of the bylaws is needed.

No.

I also respectfully disagree. The board is merely finding that its antecedent action was taken during an inquorate meeting, and the action is null and void. Were things done correctly, the board should have presented a report at the next meeting explaining the facts, and the reporting member should have raised a Point of Order that the ratification is null and void on account that it was done without the antecedent adoption of the board, as the bylaws require. The chair should have ruled favorably.

I have only a layman's understanding of "null and void". It tells me that an act is as lacking in value as if it had never happened. This implies that the timing of the determination of nullity is not relevant to the reality of the nullity. If my understanding is correct, an act that depends for its validity on the validity of an antecedent act does not, because of the timing of the determination of the nullity of the antecedent act, become valid. Instead, it is just as if the antecedent act had never occurred at all. In this case, adoption by the board is the necessary predicate for ratification by the general membership of the club. Without adoption by the board, there can be no ratification. Applying my understanding, the value of the board's null act of adoption is exactly the same value as no act at all. The timing of the determination of nullity is not relevant. The breach continues until questions about the validity of the ratification of the amendment are moot. I do not know how nullity works in civil law, but I know something about how it works in canon law. When a marriage is annulled, the nullity of the marriage goes all the way back to the beginning. The fact that conjugal life has been well established for a long time or that multiple children have been born into the family before nullity is determined by a judicial procedure does not, somehow, launder a null marriage into a valid one. My reasoning about the nullity of the adoption of the amendment is similar. Nothing will launder the ratification into a valid act, regardless of the timing of the determination of the nullity of the necessary antecedent act.

Since a "podium" is being used, the chances are pretty good that the events are not occurring in a small board.

Mr. Honemann, it's your bylaw, you tell us. 🙂

Strictly speaking, the permission of the assembly is required to read papers. In some peaceable, smaller bodies of members who are experienced in proper parliamentary procedure, the permission is either assumed or given rather informally; otherwise, to be on the safe side, a formal motion should be made.

The election can proceed without any nominees. This may prove to be inconvenient, but it is certainly possible to complete the election at the prescribed meeting.

This just sounds like gossip and detraction. It is never allowed to unjustly attack a member at a meeting by any means, email or otherwise, and the secretary and the chairman of the board should be careful to protect the good name of all the members during meetings. If the author of the email believes the matter is so serious that a disciplinary procedure should be initiated, he may carefully draft a resolution and present it at a meeting of the general membership assembly. In my own opinion, detraction is so damaging to the stability and good order of a society that the detractor is, himself, subject to discipline. Just saying.

This is not a Point of Order raised at a business. The fact that you receive text messages or emails from disgruntled members is neither here nor there, as Mr. Mervosh rightly notes. Disregarding the meaningless text, which can be ignored, there is no contest to the result of the election. The election stands. I agree with the others that a Point of Order would have had to have been raised before voting began to have had a chance of being well-taken. After the voting began, the violation of the rules was healed, and no Point of Order about the irregular nomination would have been in order. Congratulations on your election (tell your disgruntled opponents to go pound sand 🙂)!

I got the impression that Mr. Savory's motion was an ordinary main motion made without previous notice having been given. Maybe he intended otherwise.

Occasionally, the subsidiary motion, Postpone Indefinitely, is used to test the strength of the side opposing the main motion. See RONR (12th ed.) 11:5 for the details.

Mr. Savory's motion is not in order, because it violates the principle of the freedom of each session, RONR (12th ed.) 8:12.

Lay on the Table is very rarely useful in assemblies of ordinary societies, especially those that go through the entire order of business in a meeting of a few hours. Its purpose is to temporarily dispose of a main motion in order to handle other business that is urgent. It is never in order as a means of permanently disposing of a main motion, since it is high-ranking, undebatable, and only requires a majority vote for adoption. Postpone Indefinitely, on the other hand, is used to kill a motion and suppress it for the remainder of the session. It is fully debatable and opens the underlying main motion to debate, as well. Since it is such a low-ranking motion, the subsidiary motion, Amend, can be applied to the main motion while Postpone Indefinitely is pending, which is not the case with Lay on the Table.

A bylaw requiring a vote by ballot and not providing for its suspension is unsuspendable, and the effect of violating such a bylaw nullifies the result of the vote. Because such a violation gives rise to a continuing breach of the rule, a Point of Order (from which an Appeal can be raised, if necessary) can be made at any time while the "winner" of the election is still in office.

Mr. Martin's first bullet point is the regular procedure to get rid of main motions that are objectionable for the society. As he notes, to sustain the objection, a two-thirds, negative vote is required (the form of putting the question is, "Shall the question be considered?"). When the objection is sustained, the main motion is suppressed for the remainder of the session; however, other main motions on the same general topic can be made, provided they present a different question than the one that has been suppressed. Because Objection to the Consideration of a Question is not debatable, the time required to deal with an objectionable main motion is usually pretty short.

As far as the rules in RONR (12th ed.) control, a voting member cannot be denied the right to vote except by the operation of some bylaw or a disciplinary procedure. The right to vote is a right of an individual member, and any ordinary main motion that proposes to violate that right is not in order; and, outside of a disciplinary procedure, remarks in debate singling out an individual with a demand that he abstain from voting is not in order on account that the rules of debate prohibit dealing in personalities. If there is some kind of statutory ethics requirement to abstain from voting, the advice of an attorney might be helpful.

No, I'm asking you if you would please classify the motion as one of the incidental motions discussed in the book, if you would.

What incidental motion are you referring to, Mr. Kapur?

Insofar as the rules of RONR (12th ed.) control, members may not be deprived of the right to vote except by way of the operation of a disciplinary procedure. Members should, however, abstain from voting on matters about which they have a direct pecuniary interest. Speaking about members' "recusing" during debate on the pending main motion is not permitted on grounds that it is not germane--that is, it does not have a direct bearing--to what the main motion proposes.