Richard Brown

Well, maybe, but only if the society insists that he do so

Gary, go back and reread the entire thread, paying particular attention to the exact wording of the bylaw provision. It seems to say very clearly that an abstention shall count as a negative vote.

I think if you go back and reread the entire thread you will see that the original poster made it clear that no one appointed these members to the committee but the the committee is essentially self appointed by people volunteering to be on the committee. That is the problem with removing members. We are not aware that anyone appointed them.

The key being "if properly designed". Here in Louisiana the state is about to purchase new voting machines for the entire State. One proposal was to give each voter a printout of his votes for verification purposes. That is a terrible idea because it opens the door to voter fraud. It makes it possible for voters to be paid to vote a certain way and they receive payment when they leave the polling place and show the guy with the money sack that they voted the way they were instructed to vote.

I'm not sure exactly what happened. This member clearly does not have the authority to make the decision on behalf of the committee, but he certainly has the right to say this is what I think we should do. The rest of the committee can agree or not. He may just be a strong member and good leader who came up with a plan that he hopes the others will agree with.

Nosey, the provision you are referring to is not that unusual. I have seen similar bylaw provisions many times. That provision basically says that the president is the Chief Operating Officer of the organization, but that he is subject to the orders and control of the board.

I don't understand what guest Christine means either.

No, I disagree. There is no need for any sort of "locking down" of old threads. There is not that much of a problem with guests (or members) tacking on new questions to old threads. When it does happen, we just politely ask them to read the rules and to post their question by starting a new thread.

Special Rules of Order, as well as standing rules, should generally be published or printed separately from the bylaws, but are frequently attached to them so that all of the rules are available in a somewhat seamless document. They should be clearly differentiated from the bylaws, however. Special Rules of Order and standing rules are sometimes contained in a separate document such as a loose leaf binder. Edited to add: RONR says on page 35 that "Any special Rules of Order should be adopted separately from the bylaws and should be printed in the same booklet with, but under a heading separate from, the bylaws."

Like reelsman, I am also opposed to locking old threads. There are sometimes legitimate reasons for "reviving" or posting in one. When a new member or guest tries to improperly "tack onto" an old thread, I much prefer our system of politely asking the guest to post his question as a new topic.

The link, which I saved, is still working for me.

Adjust Zev, if you will join the Forum as a member, preferably using your real name as almost all of us who are serious about this do, you will not have that problem and you will gain a tremendous amount of respect for posting using your real name

Unless you have a rule to the contrary which you haven't quoted, a "majority vote of the board" means simply more yes votes than no votes, assuming a quorum is present (or voting). Some organizations which permit email voting require that in order to pass a motion must receive the votes of a majority of the entire board, but that is not the default rule. If you have 20 board members and 10 vote yes, 5 vote no, and 5 don't vote, the motion has received a majority vote, although it did not receive the vote of a majority of the entire membership of the board. FWIW, that vote of 10 to 5 is also a two thirds vote because it received twice as many yes votes as no votes. Where are you getting that wording about a majority or two thirds of the entire membership? It isn't in your rule that you quoted. That is an entirely different vote threshold than a "majority vote", which, by definition, means simply more yes votes than no votes. The latter unless you have a rule that specifically requires the vote of a majority or two thirds of the entire membership. Unless your rule specifies otherwise, a majority vote (or a two thirds vote) means a majority (or two thirds) of the votes cast. Abstentions are ignored. However, as I said above, the rule you quoted does not require a vote of a majority of the entire membership. It requires an ordinary majority vote.

I agree. That is my suggestion, as well.

Yes, the suggested rules and procedures in your article are absolutely among those that I like better and are much more comprehensive. In fact, yours may be the best I have seen. Thank you for sharing them again! The national Libertarian Party also has some very good rules and procedures for e-meetings, or, more specifically, for voting on specific motions via email, from the number of co-sponsors needed in order to start an email vote on a motion to the details of how the discussion and voting is to be handled. Several years ago NAP published an 81 page booklet on electronic meetings which is very good, but it is no longer in publication. It was published in 2009 by the Educational Resources Committee with Ann Guiberson as the chairman. I keep hoping NAP will publish an updated version.

I don't think we can say that having the committee elects its chairman violates any rules without knowing how the committee was set up and what, if anything, the motion or bylaw provision creating the committee says about the selection of its chairman. Having committees elect their chairmen is a rather common practice and is specifically authorized by the following language on page 176: If the committee is named by a power other than the chair (such as the assembly or the executive board), the body that elects the committee members has the power, at the time the appointments are made, to designate any one of them as chairman. If a chairman is not designated when the committee is appointed, the committee has the right to elect its own chairman. What rule in RONR prohibits a committee from electing its chairman? It seems to be expressly permitted.

Yes, they did. It's on the CD-ROM version, but it's not as extensive as I would like. It's a very good start, though! I've seen other rules for electronic meetings that I like better.

Guest Carol, it is rather common for bylaws to provide that voting for officers shall be by secret ballot unless there is only one candidate for an office (or no more candidates than there are positions to be filled, such as with a board or selection of delegates), in which case the vote may be viva voce or the chair may declare the candidate elected.

That very paper trail, however, can serve to defeat the secrecy of the ballot.

As Mr. Katz stated in his first response, committee members can generally be removed in the same way they were appointed. If they were appointed by the membership, they can be removed by the membership, generally by means of the motion to amend or rescind something previously adopted. How and by whom was this member appointed to the committee?

Even if they can't be disciplined, they can be subject to a motion of censure.

Actually, I agree with you. I don't think it matters whether provision B says that it may be suspended or if it's provision A which says that provision B may be suspended.

Not unless your bylaws or some superior rule (such as your constitution, articles of incorporation or state law) authorize electronic meetings and absentee (electronic) voting. It would be up to your organization to set (and interpret) quorum requirements in its own rules. Edited to add: RONR contains some very general information and suggestions on electronic meetings on Pages 97-100.

There shouldn't be any need for anyone else to weigh in, but just to be clear, qualifications for office that are contained in the bylaws cannot be suspended.... ever... period.... unless the provision itself provides for its own suspension. It doesn't matter whether it's in a meeting or not. Qualifications for office in the bylaws cannot be suspended.

I agree.