Tom Coronite

On 10/1/2021 at 6:39 PM, PAPS said:

Is it permissible to say, "As there are no further nominees for ALL offices, the list of recommended nominees is elected by acclamation or unanimous consent"?

Thank you,

Amy

Personally, I’d drop the strike-through text.

You’ve cited it yourself, there in red.

Something along the lines of “As there are no other nominations, Joe Shmoe is elected to the officer of dog catcher.” should work.

It would depend on the circumstances, probably. Was this an election irregularity? A miscalculation of a voting threshold? A matter referred to a body that’s properly under the purview of another? The remedy likely depends on what happened.

So, what happened?

On 9/28/2021 at 12:20 AM, Tomm said:

But it's amazing how the board uses RONR against the Membership when it works to their own advantage!

Just a hunch, but it’s probably more misusing than using.

Aside from the misuse of “table,” the people crying foul over their votes being “negated” may be off base. Yes, “table” should not have been used. But if the motion on the floor had been properly postponed, that would have been done prior to their absentee votes being counted, also. 
 

In fact, whereas the original motion wasn’t voted upon, why were they counting absentee votes?

Did the assembly take some action based on the recommendation? Record THAT in the minutes.

Technically you haven’t asked a question, but if a motion is made, and the board vote on that motion is evenly divided, say 4 to 4, that motion fails, as it didn’t get a majority of the votes. Maybe that’s helpful? 🤞

On 9/21/2021 at 6:13 PM, Al Dunbar said:

Thanks. Yes, being unable to nominate anyone for vacant positions is something to be avoided. Our nominating committee reviews eligibility before allowing a nomination. Agreed that, in a sense, the problem doesn't exist. 

Agreed that the time it takes to ask for further nominations is not an issue. Our AGMs are very brief, so having to add a name to the ballots (or create ballots in the event that none of the positions is being contested) is what will be the problem.

1) Ineligibility for office is not the only way you could end up in a bind. Suppose the nominee changes his mind and is unwilling to serve and you want to nominate someone else? Or you discover he’s been embezzling funds and you want to nominate someone else? What if he dies before the election?

2) A blank piece of paper has already been suggested by Mr. Honemann. If you have your hearts set on printed ballots, you could always add a blank line or two in addition to the pre-printed names. In fact, that facilitates write-ins also.

There’s a lot of wisdom and experience behind what is prescribed in RONR. Think long and hard before rejecting it.

On 9/21/2021 at 4:24 PM, Al Dunbar said:

Also, what are the main reasons for not making such a change?

Just a few days ago there was a post in which the OP described how their rules preventing nominations from the floor ended up putting them in a bind. They had persons nominated who were ineligible, and their rules prohibited nominating anyone else before the meeting, and even AT the meeting.

IMHO, especially whereas you admit you can’t recall anyone being nominated from the floor, you’re trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. How long does it take to say “Are there any further nominations for (position)? Hearing none…”   😕

https://robertsrules.com/frequently-asked-questions/
 

See FAQ #6

You say the “current” secretary IS no longer on the committee. If not a member, that person presumably should not be there, absent some permission given. So don’t give it.

You also suggest the current secretary needs to be there to call the roll and read minutes. Someone else could do that, or you could elect a new (interim) secretary prior to those items.

If at any point it’s discovered that a non-member is in attendance without permission, simply explain that fact and invite the person to leave. If you anticipate rough stuff, perhaps have some folks on hand who’ll help this person find the exit.

In any case, it’s unclear to me, due to terms such as current and interim, whether or not this person is now a member, or a secretary. 

They may if your bylaws authorize that.

13:17 advises against Co-chairs, for the impossible problems it causes.

IMO you’d be skipping a step that your bylaws require, if you do it that way.

Rather, since your bylaws provide for the secretary casting a ballot if such a motion is made, unanimous consent could be used for THAT.

Rather than “without objection…the nominee is elected,” I’d suggest it would be “”If there is no objection….. the secretary will cast a ballot…”

(As an aside, you might want to consider amending the bylaws to eliminate that practice.)

Raise a point of order at the meeting. Points of order should be recorded in the minutes regardless of whether they are sustained or lost. 48:4

Ah. I glossed over that point. My bad.

Looks like you may very well have some open positions, as your bylaws appear to prohibit nominations from the floor.

Maybe the club would vote favorably on their applications for membership at the meeting, prior to the voting on the nominated candidates?

Check out FAQ #3

https://robertsrules.com/frequently-asked-questions/#faqs

I know of several clergy colleagues who are of the mind that bylaws, as a whole, may be suspended. They believe this to be a legitimate way of dealing with a troublesome bylaw preventing the church from doing something it wants to do. They prescribe voting to suspend the bylaws, doing the thing the bylaws prohibit, then voting to reinstate the bylaws. I don’t know why this mistaken notion seems so prevalent in churches.

As Mr Merritt notes, be careful to distinguish the “rules of order” in 25:14 from your bylaws in general. They are not the same thing.

I agree with you Mr. Kapur. And I’m sure a general misunderstanding of what a quorum is finds its way in there, too. 

And I hasten to add, I agree such a quorum is absurd, yet that is what they do.

Thanks, gentlemen. That makes sense. I’m familiar with some (mostly ecclesial) organizations that have quorum definitions as a majority of those who show up, so I guess my mind went there first.

Maybe my brain isn’t firing on all cylinders this early in the morning. But that 1st paragraph in the OP certainly reads to me that a quorum is a majority of those present, be it in person or by proxy. If so, how could a quorum ever not be present?

Assuming there’s no other reason he can’t (e.g. nominations aren’t in order, someone else has the floor, etc.), yes he can volunteer.

Point well taken, Rob, and I’m sure they will be aware. Without going into a lot of detail and thus straying far from a parliamentary discussion, these meetings are somewhat perfunctory, at least in this tradition. A search committee typically vets candidates for months, even years, and presents the best candidate. By this time, (ideally) everyone’s questions are answered already.

But to your point, I did advise them to ensure each meeting was distinct and no corners were cut to make it work. I would prefer the meeting be on another day, but that’s me. They simply overlooked this provision in their bylaws. Thank you for your observation.

Thanks, Richard. As I’m considering more and reading, I’m changing my opinion. I’m glad you’ve confirmed my revised opinion.