J. J.

I would suggest a main motion "that the assembly go into a committee of the whole to consider (the subject)," if you want to have discussion. See p.168, especially the last paragraph. Note that the committee of the whole is not obliged to recommend a motion to the assembly. If it is purely informational, with no discussion, I'd suggest that it might be appropriate to be treated as a report of a special committee.

Ah, is not that the purpose of having a recount, to determine if there is something wrong? I have to come to the conclusion that if has been counted, under the rules, it can, in fact, be recounted, under the rules for recounting votes including those rules on p. 419. The quarterly time interval would apply. That said, I would question if this was a counted vote under the rules. Did the chair say, "A has 10 votes, B has 6 votes, and C has 3 votes. A is elected?" Did the chair say, "A has the most votes. He is elected?"

One example is when the member parliamentarian has an additional role with the society. For example, the bylaw committee is chaired by the parliamentarian and it would be helpful for him to speak on a bylaw revision that is coming before the assembly.

The simple fact that the rule has been adopted changes the relationship from the president's standpoint. The president knows that the parliamentarian can raise points of order (and otherwise participate participate as a member). If he is not happy about that, he usually can decide not to appoint a parliamentarian, or to perhaps decide to appoint another individual. That relationship has changed, because the rule has changed it. The member parliamentarian may still advise the chair, but may also exercise his rights as a member, much in the same way that member secretary may exercise his rights as a member.

No, at least in the latter case. It would be possible to have a rule that someone can be punished for not attending meetings. There are no "fundamental rights" in RONR, but there are "fundamental principles of parliamentary law," and "a basic right of an individual member."

I don't think it denies that right, in the general case. A member could still write in someone. They could write in "J. J." Even if J. J. is not eligible, the member has still complied with that rule. The member, even without a write in, would know that his ballot will not be credited unless he has voted for the number required in the rules. This would be similar to the member knowing that if he votes for an ineligible candidate, his ballot will not be credited. In both cases, the member has the right to vote and exercises it in a way that vote will not be credited.

You presume correctly.

I think that was the argument, in part. Broadly, the question is can a rule of order in RONR (except for those rules required by RONR to in the bylaws) be superseded by a special rule? My position is yes, except for those rules required by RONR to in the bylaws.

My initial answer on that thread was based on Q & A 26, National Parliamentarian, 1st Quarter, 2003, pp. 6-7. The thread refers to a second opinion that was published in 2013. There is a fundamental difference between an individual right created by RONR, and an individual right that than only be overridden by a bylaw. For example, a rule limiting the right to vote, except through a disciplinary suspension, must be placed in the bylaws(p. 406, ll. 25-30). The rule limiting (or prohibiting) the right of a member to demand a ballot in the case of disciplinary action, could be adopted as a special rule. RONR has no language mandating that only way to remove the secret ballot on request rule, as expressed on p. 668, ll.1-3, is to put that in the bylaws; at no point does RONR say that only a bylaw can remove this rule. Likewise, while a member has a "right to abstain (p. 407, ll. 12-19)" nothing says that the right cannot be abridged "except as the bylaws may otherwise provide."

As one parliamentarian wrote, "...while the wisdom of the voter in making that choice may be questioned, the right of the voter to make that choice cannot."

My question would be what would constitute a proper notice. At the properly held, and properly noticed, January 2019 meeting, the Board sets its meeting as being on the second Tuesday of the month at 7:30 PM at the clubhouse. On January 20, 2019, the secretary sends out the meeting notice as such: "The February 2019 regular meeting shall be held at 7:30 PM on Tuesday 2/12/19 at the clubhouse. The March 2019 regular meeting shall be held at 7:30 PM on Tuesday 3/12/19 at the clubhouse. The April 2019 regular meeting shall be held at 7:30 PM on Tuesday 4/9/19 at the clubhouse. The May 2019 regular meeting shall be held at 7:30 PM on Tuesday 5/14/19 at the clubhouse." This pattern continues until the final entry, "The December 2019 regular meeting shall be held at 7:30 PM on Tuesday 12/10/19 at the clubhouse." I would question if this would be an invalid notice, even of the meetings after the February regular meeting. Notice of each regular meeting has been sent in advance "in writing with at least five (5) business days notice." Separate notice has not been sent out, but I do not see a requirement that the notice must be separate, merely that it be sent no later than a specific number of days. If anyone says that this method of sending notice is inadvisable, I will agree. My question is does this method would actually cause the notice of the March through December meetings to to be invalid. [I will note that some organizations do put a maximum the when the notice can be sent in their bylaws, e.g. , "Notice of all meetings of the Executive Committee shall be given in writing with at least five (5), but not more than thirty (30), business days notice." At times, I have question why such a maximum rule is necessary, but can now see its practical purpose.]

A while back, I remember a discussion about this. A mail ballot is not necessary a secret ballot. The term ballot, when unqualified, is a secret ballot. The term "ballot" when qualified, may not be a secret ballot, e.g. a sign ballot is clearly not a secret ballot. I would take it that a vote on the amendment at the meeting need not be by secret ballot. If a ballot is not required to be used at the meeting, i.e., the votes cast by members at the meeting are not secret. If so, there would not be a right for all members to secrecy in voting. It would be possible for the rules to provide that there be secrecy is casting of votes by mail, but not with voting in person, but such a rule is unlikely, and in my opinion, would need to be clearly stated. I am in agreement with the conclusion of Messers Merritt, Katz and Lages. I do disagree with Guest Who's Coming to Dinner's suggestion that RONR contemplates nothing "other than a secret ballot when using the term 'ballot,'" especially in light of p. 420, ll. 22-25. I think that Guest Zev does show that, at least in earlier editions, a ballot by mail is not necessary a secret ballot. .

I agree, but I might use the word "censure," or the term "expressing strong disapproval of the action."

It sounds a bit like a consent calendar.

Assuming that notice not been given, I would suggest that the proposed amendment be: To strike out from [the location in the bylaws] the words "shall automatically become an Ex-Officio to the International Board of Directors, for not more than two (2) years immediately following the expiration of her term as International President." and insert "transitions to the role of Immediate Past President, an Ex-Officio to the International Board of Directors, for not more than two (2) years immediately following her role as International President." I'm not sure how you want the date changed.

Unless the bylaws say otherwise the members must cast a vote, in person, either within a meeting or at properly established polling place established by the assembly. Note the "in person." Speaking over a phone is not "on person." A message board, like this or Facebook, is not "in person." A letter or e-mail is not "in person." Further, unless there is as special rule, in order to be valid, these things must happen at a meeting with a quorum, for a motion to be adopted: 1. The motion must "put" to the assembly. 2. The result must be announced to the assembly. The Facebook group violates these rules.

I will disagree with the bolded inference, though I agree with the overall conclusion. My prior example shows that a rule of order might not apply within the meeting context. Another case would be related to standing committees established by special rules of order. I could very easily see a special rule establishing a standing to impose procedural requirements on that committee that have no application in the assembly's meeting. A specific matter may be referred to a standing and the rules require that once the committee makes a favorable decision,it automatically refers the matter to another standing committee.

It is not correct to say that RONR prohibits voting outside of a meeting, in the case of a "'polling place' apart from the convention meeting," and extends this to large meetings of different types of assemblies (p. 439, ll. 14-18). That is not absentee voting; I refer to it as a type extra cameral voting. There are some substantive differences between voting at a polling place apart from the meeting and mail voting. In the "polling place" balloting, the member directly votes with the organization and not through an intermediary, i.e. the US Postal Service. Among other methods, a special rule of order order could authorize the "polling place balloting." Take two hypothetical sets of special rules: First set of rules (A): "Rule 2A. The annual meeting shall adjourn for lunch between 11:30 AM and 2:00 PM." "Rule 5A. Balloting for the election of officers shall be held in a separate room between the hours 10:00 AM and 2:30 PM." At 11:00 AM the rule could be suspended to permit the polls to be closed at 1:00 PM. Even though the voting is happening at a point when the meeting is not is session, the meeting still has control over when polls open or close. The polls could also be suspended to close the polls a 3:00 PM. Second set of rules (B): "Rule 2B. The annual meeting shall adjourn for lunch between 11:30 AM and 2:00 PM." "Rule 5B. Balloting for the election of officers shall be held in a separate room between the hours 10:00 AM and 2:30 PM, unless, upon the order of the president, a new time is set and that five days notice is sent to the members of the new time." The rules could not be suspended to close the polls at 1:00 PM or to keep open until 3:00 PM, because notice and notice protects absentee rights. All four of these rules are rules of order, and if in the bylaws, all are in the nature of a rule of order. Rules 2A, 5A, and 2B, could be suspended. Rule 5B could not, because involves absentee rights. The situation described is more like Rule 5B, because mail voting very clearly deals with an absentee right. In dealing with this, the first question is if the rule is in the nature of a rule of order. The second question is, if this is a rule of order, could it be suspended. There are certainly rules of order that cannot be suspended.

I have the same problem that my colleague Mr. Katz does. Unless there simply was not time adequate between the ballot being sent and August 25; no one is being prevented from casting a vote that will count. Some members are being prevented from casting a ballot after a certain time. RONR may prohibit the casting of a vote after a certain point, even by an eligible member, or members. It does thar by the motion to close the polls (p.286, ll. 15-34). I my case, if I received a ballot on Saturday, August 25, it would be impossible for me to have had sent it to have a postmark by 8/25, even if I filled out the ballot immediately, and handed it back to the letter carrier. No post office in my neighborhood is open on a Saturday afternoon, and my mail usually delivered in the late afternoon. In that case, it might be a question of a member or members being "improperly prevented" from voting. There could case where the secretary-treasurer was informed of the error on the ballot, had sufficient time to notify the members of the correct date, and chose not to. That could violate a rule protecting a basic right of an individual to demand that the rules be enforced (p. 251, c.); RONR notes that, "It is the right of every member who notices a breach to insist on their enforcement (249, ll 32-34, emphasis added)." I am not thrilled about applying this outside of the meeting context, but that right may exist outside of the meeting. I would note, as well, that if the ballots remain separated, and separately counted, it will be exceptionally easy to see how the assembly can determine if the result is affected (p. 416, ll. 30-33). It is possible that the results of the "late" ballots, when added with ballots that were postmarked before the deadline, would not change the outcome. Before even considering invalidating the results, this should be the first step.

You are not the odd man out here. The bylaws, not some statement on the ballot, must govern. There is a general presumption in RONR that members are aware of the strictures of the bylaws and of the rules. This is a general principle and applies to a number of things, such as notice of meetings (p. 575, ll. 32-36), and, to an extent the, rules relating to custom (p.19). A member could have, upon receiving the ballot and consulting the bylaws, and contacted the secretary-treasure to correct the error. Apparently no one did. I will note that "the voting body itself is the ultimate judge of election disputes (p. 446, ll 4-5)."

First, I would ask what does the phrase "did not call in?" Second, if this is some type of a governmental body, there probably is some sort of statutory rule that will cover this. That rule will supersede RONR.

I think a motion found null and void is null and void. One problem is the renewal question. The assembly is being asked at one point to find the motion null and void, and them approve the exact same motion. Technically, that might be a problem.

In the first case, there has to be some possibly valid action to ratify. I don't know if an action just found to be null and void could be ratified. On the second, it would the time the motion go into effect, in some cases. A motion "that 123 be authorized" made in June and ratified in July would go into effect in June. A motion "that 123 be authorized" made and adopted in June, will be in effect in June. I was tempted to say "not a heck of a lot," but I think the effect could be this substantive difference.

Though the chair did not state the it properly, "We don't have a quorum; we'll have to have another vote at the next meeting," I would still treat it as a ruling. That said, it would be up to a future session to determine if the motion to ratify is in order or not. It will come to that judgment call.

If a motion is declare null and void (via the point of order) would be in order to approve the same motion during the same session? Assume that the motion "that 123 be authorized" was adopted at an inquorate meeting in May. At the June meeting a point of order is raised that the motion there was no quorum at the meeting when the motion "that 123 be authorized." The point of order is found to be well taken. The motion "that 123 be authorized (May)" is null and void. Someone moves that "the motion 'that 123 be authorized(May),' be ratified." The assembly would be in the position of attempting to approve a motion that it just found null and void. Someone could make an new motion that is identical, in text, to the motion that was voided. In most cases the new motion would be an original main motion. The motion would be "that 123 be authorized(June)."