Richard Brown

Yes, he can. Edited to add: he can also move the previous question at the conclusion of his remarks in debate

I think you mean page 32, lines 25 through 27. However, he is misinterpreting that provision. The chair has no choice but to state the question once a proper motion has been made and seconded. He has no discretion to say no, I don't like that motion I'm not going to allow it. Perhaps you should show the chairman page 37 lines 20 through 26. See also page 39 lines 8 through 11. The chair cannot refuse to state a motion simply because he doesn't like it. He may refuse to state the question only if the motion is out of order or the wording is not clear. In that case, the chair should offer to help the maker perfect the motion. Edited to add: by the way, if the chair rules that the motion is out of order, his ruling may be appealed to the assembly.

Mr. Akers, as Mr. Novosielski asked you back on November 9, we really need to know what YOUR organization's bylaws say about your elections and also about vacancies. Please don't paraphrase, but quote the applicable provisions from your bylaws exactly. Unfortunately, RONR does not deal specifically with what happened in your situation but does provide some guidance which can be helpful. First, though, it will help us if we know what YOUR bylaws say. The provisions in some other organization's bylaws simply are not applicable.... but might serve as a guide for amending yours. In my opinion, there is a real question whether this person actually consented to serve if elected. By consenting to run, I would say he did. Then, prior to election, he apparently decided he doesn't want the office after all. The question (or one of the questions) is whether that amounts to a withdrawal of his consent to serve if elected... and whether it is even possible to withdraw the consent once given. If he did not consent to the election, and if he declined to serve immediately after being elected, it can be argued that there is an incomplete election. But, if he is deemed to have consented to the election and that his consent was never validly withdrawn, then he has been elected whether he likes it or not. A resignation would then be necessary, or certainly advisable. Knowing what your bylaws say might help us, but ultimately I think it is going to be up to your organization to interpret its own bylaws (particularly the election and vacancy provisions) and determine whether there is an incomplete election which is merely completed as soon as possible, or a resignation, which must be filled according to your vacancy filling provisions. I don't think RONR provides a clear answer and I suspect you will get varying opinions as to the status of this individual and how to deal with it. But, quote us your bylaw provisions and we will go from there. btw, if it turns out he was ineligible for election, that tends to lead me to say the situation should be treated as an incomplete election rather than a vacancy, especially if he accepted the job prior to the election being final.

Guest Diane, I am going to throw a bit of a monkey wrench into things. I am familiar with several Republican Women's clubs and have been an associate member of one. My wife is currently a member of one. It is my understanding, at least with the Louisiana clubs, that a portion of the dues you pay to the local club is sent to the state and national associations and that a person is not considered a member until the required dues portion is forwarded to the state and national organizations. I have been told that different clubs handle this "end of the year" joining differently, but that the clubs my Republican women friends are members of or familiar with don't consider a person a member until the state/national dues have been paid. In Louisiana, I believe that is $18. I have been told that some clubs waive their own club dues for members joining late in the year, but that in order to be an official "member in good standing with voting rights", the state and national dues must be paid and that there is no waiver provision for that. I think some clubs waive their own dues near the end of the year, but require payment of the portion going to state and national if the new member wants to have voting rights prior to the start of the new year. So, you might check the bylaws of your parent state and national organizations for more information on whether payment of dues to those "parent" organizations is a prerequisite for membership in a local club. And check the rest of your own local bylaws for such a provision. Ultimately, as I believe we have already said, it is up to your own club to interpret its bylaws and to sustain or overturn the ruling of the chair if there is an appeal of his ruling. My opinion as a parliamentarian, based solely on your own bylaw provisions which you have provided, remains that you are a member and should have the right to vote. However, that opinion is somewhat conditional and is contingent on whether there are any superior rules (such as state and national bylaws) which have a bearing on the issue... or some other provision on point in another section of your own bylaws. Edited to add: See my next post for an update

Bruce3431, following up on my previous post above, when do you actually conduct the elections? November or December? Or some other time? If the elections do not actually take place until the December meeting (or later), and if the bylaw amendment is adopted first, you don't have a problem. The office of Financial Secretary will no longer exist and there will be no need to elect one and if one is elected, that election (to that office) will be null and void because there is no such position. If someone gets nominated for the position in November, it will surely be with the knowledge that by the time the elections take place in December, the position will probably have been eliminated.

That's a tricky question and the answer depends partly on exactly what your bylaws say. However, per RONR and probably per your bylaws the office of Financial Secretary is an office that should be filled according to your current bylaws. If no one is nominated for that position AND if no one receives a write in vote for that position, then one will not be elected and you will have a vacancy that should be filled asap. I think a better course of action is to elect the rest of your officers at the November meeting, but to adopt a motion postponing the election of Financial Secretary until the December meeting. Once the elections are the pending item of business, a motion to postpone one or more of the elections to the next meeting is in order. In fact, all of the elections could be postponed until the December meeting, but I am not suggesting that. It would require a majority vote to postpone one or more of the elections. The postponement cannot be beyond your next meeting and must be within a quarterly time interval. I suspect that December is your next meeting and that is the meeting you would postpone the election to. Then, at the December meeting, take up the bylaw amendment first, or at least before the election for Financial Secretary. Since bylaw amendments become effective immediately upon adoption, if the amendment is adopted the office of Financial Secretary will have been eliminated and no longer exist. The election of a Financial Secretary will then become moot. Others may have other ideas, so stay tuned. Edited to add: btw, if the bylaw amendment fails, then just proceed to conduct the election.

Guest Merry, please post your question as a new topic, following the procedure in the first pinned post in this forum which says, "IMPORTANT: Read this first": https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/25416-important-read-this-first-faq-and-information-for-new-members-and-guests/

RONR provides that a ballot vote may be ordered by majority vote unless your bylaws provide otherwise. All that is needed is for someone to move to vote by ballot, second the motion, and a majority vote.

I believe it is gust Diane's position, as well as the position of at least two or three of us who have responded in this thread and the other thread, that members who join between September 1st and January 1st are indeed members from the date they join and pay the required dues, even though the dues are for the coming year. It seems to me they are members from the moment they join but are simply not being charged dues for the last 4 months of the year. The question is, when do members who join between September 1st and December 31st actually become members? Also, how to appeal a ruling of the chair that such a person is not yet a member in good standing.

What, EXACTLY, do your bylaws say about the president being a member of all committees? Please don't paraphrase, but quote the provision exactly. btw, if there is no such provision, then he is not a member of any committees unless explicitly made a member by some provision in the bylaws or by the motion creating the committee or appointing the members to it if it is a special committee. A provision making the president a member, ex officio, of all committees except the nominating committee is a common provision in bylaws, but if it isn't there, the president is not automatically a member of the committees.

Well, then, I guess the two disagree with General Robert and are not aware that provisions for settling election ties by lot are rather common. And I suppose you would rather an organization that uses mail ballots to elect officers to have to resort to another expensive and time consuming mail ballot to settle a tie than to settle it by lot. It is quite common, for example, for bylaws to provide that election ties be settled by lot, such as the flip of a coin. And it is quite common for two candidates who are tied to agree between themselves that one of them will withdraw and that they will decide who will withdraw by a coin toss. You also must disagree with General Robert who said the following on page 234 of Parliamentary Law regarding a tie vote when voting by mail, "If there is a tie vote, it should be decided by lot". And the following statement on page 238; "In electing members of boards by ballot, if a majority vote is received by more than there are places to fill, those places are filled by those receiving the highest number of votes. If a tie interferes, the tie is decided by lot, unless the assembly continues the balloting, which latter is much more satisfactory and should be done if time permits." If the term of office of the members of the board elected at one time varies, those receiving the greatest number of votes take the longer term. All ties are decided by lot." That makes at least three references by General Robert in Parliamentary Law to settling ties by lot. But, I guess our sarcastic unknown guest thins that reading and studying Parliamentary Law is not a good step in obtaining a good education in parliamentary procedure. For that matter, it looks like both of you think that becoming familiar with Parliamentary Law is a bad thing, not a good thing. The parliamentarian who suggested it at least three times in his book is the one who we most revere. SMH. Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding, I did not endorse the coin toss for declaring a winner as was supposedly suggested by this organization's attorney, but rather I said that it is quite appropriate for the candidates themselves to agree that one of them will withdraw from the race based on a coin toss. I very carefully DID NOT say that the coin toss itself would substitute for a majority vote in determining the winner. It is quite common for two candidates, especially when they are friends, to agree between themselves that one of them will withdraw from the race based on a coin toss. And it is quite common for parliamentarians to suggest that some organizations, depending on the size and nature of the organization and the nature of its elections, to include a provision in their bylaws that election ties shall be settled by lot.

I agree with Mr. Novosielski who appears to agree with my comments in your other thread on this issue. For future reference, it is usually best to ask follow up questions in the same thread unless the new question is completely unrelated to the initial question. In your case, they are directly related, but people who read this thread and haven't read the other thread will likely be lost because most of the key information is provided in the other thread. Edited to add: Here is a link to Guest Diane's earlier thread which provides the background: https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/32802-4th-quarter-membership-enrollment/

Actually, a coin toss CAN be used to settle a tie vote in an election without violating RONR, but only indirectly. If the election is for an officer as defined in RONR, it can be decided only by a majority vote unless a bylaw provision provides otherwise. So, the assembly cannot properly permit the election to be directly settled by a coin toss. But, the candidates themselves can agree between themselves that one of them will withdraw from the race based on the result of a coin toss. There technically still needs to be another ballot taken, and the members can technically continue to vote for or write in the name of the candidate who withdrew, but as a practical matter the coin toss usually settles the election impasse. If you search the forum using the search words "coin toss" you will find several threads on point. BTW, I suggest that when doing a forum search, it is almost always best to choose the selection for "all search terms" rather than "any search terms". Using the default setting of "any search terms" usually yields far too many results, most unrelated to what you are searching for.

The two provisions need to be read together so as to give effect to both if possible. There is absolutely no reason for the provision permitting the board to change the dues from time to time unless that was the intent of the drafters. See principle of interpretation # 2 on page 589: "When a provision of the bylaws is susceptible to two meanings, one of which conflicts with or renders absurd another bylaw provision, and the other meaning does not, the latter must be taken as the true meaning." The interpretation that the bylaws set the dues at $XXX at the time of adoption of the bylaws but that the board may change the amount from time to time is the only reasonable interpretation and the only way to give effect to both provisions.

I agree with almost all of what Mr Novosielski said, but to me, there is no ambiguity. The bylaws initially set the dues at a certain amount and give the board the authority to change that amount. It seems pretty straightforward to me.

I don't know what you mean by this. When the bylaws require a vote by ballot, a ballot vote must be taken regardless of whether there is only one candidate. It is improper to try to make a ballot vote unanimous and a ballot vote must be taken even if there is only one candidate. It is a simple rule. Is there something difficult to understand about it? Also, there is no requirement in Robert's Rules and no requirement I'm aware of in your bylaws that requires that there be more than one candidate for an office. If two candidates were nominated, or announced that they were running, and then one of them dropped out, you are left with one candidate who still must be voted on with a ballot vote. And additional nominations must be permitted from the floor prior to the election unless prohibited by your bylaws.

There is no requirement in RONR that there be more than one candidate for an office. In fact, there is no requirement that there be a candidate at all. RONR provides that unless the bylaws prohibit write-in votes, persons may be elected to office by write-in votes without having been nominated or actually "running" for the office. The norm is for a nominating committee to nominate one person for each office, although nominating more than one person is permitted. And, of course, nominations must be permitted from the floor unless prohibited by your bylaws. Edited to add: if your bylaws require a vote by ballot, a ballot vote must be taken and cannot be waived or suspended even if there is only one candidate.

It's hard for me to follow exactly what happened, but as to your question whether one of the candidates should have served as a teller, my answer is "probably not", but RONR does not explicitly prohibit it. The way RONR states it, it appears to be a "should" rule which expresses preferred practice, but not an absolute rule. However, the time to raise a point of order was at the time of his appointment. It is too late to complain about it now. Here is the provision on page 414 of RONR regarding the appointment of tellers: Balloting Procedure. In balloting in a meeting where the voting is in the same room as the meeting, the chair appoints tellers to distribute, collect, and count the ballots, and to report the vote. The number of tellers is dependent on the number of voters, and the number of offices to be filled or questions to be answered, or the number of candidates. For a small group, two or three tellers are usually sufficient. The tellers should be chosen for accuracy and dependability, should have the confidence of the membership, and should not have a direct personal involvement in the question or in the result of the vote to an extent that they should refrain from voting under the principle stated on page 407. Often their position with regard to the issue involved is well known, however, and they are frequently chosen to protect the interests of each opposing side. They normally vote themselves.

This is confusing. What exactly do the bylaws say about the dues and the authority of the board to change them? As has already been pointed out, the chair does not have this authority to make "executive decisions" of this nature unless your bylaws give him this authority. This is a matter for the board to decide, not the chair, assuming that the board does have the authority to set the dues.

Agreeing with Mr. Katz, nothing in RONR prohibits it.

Well, I disagree. If the management company is giving bad advice, it needs to be told or shown what the correct rule is. Showing the manager this thread just might do the trick and cause a retraction and an apology and prevent the company from giving the same bad advice to other organizations. I do agree, though, that if the management company persists with such bad advice, the advice on that point, at least, should be ignored.... and that perhaps searching for a new management company might be in order.

Well, let's back up. Does your secretary have the right to cast a "unanimous" vote for the assembly? If the bylaws require a ballot vote, it is not permitted. It also is not in order to move to make unanimous a ballot vote which was not unanimous. See, for example, the following on pages 412-413 of RONR: When the bylaws require a vote to be taken by ballot, this requirement cannot be suspended, even by a unanimous vote. A vote ordering a ballot vote on a particular question (see 30) can, however, be reconsidered as long as the balloting has not yet begun. [page 413] When a vote is to be taken, or has been taken, by ballot, whether or not the bylaws require that form of voting, no motion is in order that would force the disclosure of a member's vote or views on the matter. A motion to make unanimous a ballot vote that was not unanimous is thus out of order, unless that motion is also voted on by ballot—since any member who openly votes against declaring the first vote unanimous will thereby reveal that he did not vote for the prevailing choice. Whenever a vote is to be taken by ballot, it is out of order to move that one person—the secretary, for example—cast the ballot of the assembly. Back to your question of whether the assistant secretary can cast such a vote if the secretary is authorized to do so: That probably depends on the exact wording in your bylaws as to the duties and powers of the assistant secretary. Edit: I just re-read your post. You said "If the Secretary is at the meeting can the Asst, Secretary make the unanimous vote?". My answer in the paragraph immediately above was based on my assumption that the regular secretary was NOT present. If the secretary IS present, then I find it highly doubtful that the assistant secretary could cast such a ballot on behalf of the assembly.... even if the secretary could do so.

Guest Melissa, supplementing my last comment immediately above, it is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that the right to vote is a basic, fundamental right of a member of an assembly. Your board is such an assembly. If you are a member of it at the time a vote is taken, you have the right to vote on that issue. You cannot be compelled to abstain. See, for example, the following language from page 265 of RONR: Rules which embody fundamental principles of parliamentary law, such as the rule that allows only one question to be considered at a time (p. 59), cannot be suspended, even by a unanimous vote. Thus, since it is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that the right to vote is limited to the members of an organization who are actually present at the time the vote is taken in a regular or properly called meeting (p. 423), the rules cannot be suspended so as to give the right to vote to a nonmember,* or to authorize absentee (pp. 423–24) voting. Likewise, since it is a fundamental principle that each member of a deliberative assembly is entitled to one—and only one—vote on a question, the rules may not be suspended so as to authorize cumulative voting (pp. 443–44). And this on page 407: [page 407] ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE. It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that each person who is a member of a deliberative assembly is entitled to one—and only one—vote on a question. This is true even if a person is elected or appointed to more than one position, each of which would entitle the holder to a vote. For example, in a convention, a person selected as delegate by more than one constituent body may cast only one vote. An individual member's right to vote may not be transferred to another person (for example, by the use of proxies). And this at the very beginning of the book on page 3: [page 3] A member of an assembly, in the parliamentary sense, as mentioned above, is a person entitled to full participation in its proceedings, that is, as explained in 3 and 4, the right to attend meetings, to make motions, to speak in debate, and to vote. No member can be individually deprived of these basic rights of membership—or of any basic rights concomitant to them, such as the right to make nominations or to give previous notice of a motion—except through disciplinary proceedings. And, in case someone claims that you have some sort of conflict and must abstain, see this on pages 407-408: ABSTAINING FROM VOTING ON A QUESTION OF DIRECT PERSONAL INTEREST. No member should vote on a question in which he has a direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members of the organization. For example, if a motion proposes that the organization enter into a contract with a commercial firm of which a member of the organization is an officer and from which contract he would derive personal pecuniary profit, the member should abstain from voting on the motion. However, no member can be compelled to refrain from voting in such circumstances. VOTING ON QUESTIONS AFFECTING ONESELF. The rule on abstaining from voting on a question of direct personal interest does not mean that a member should not vote for himself for an office or other position to which [page 408] members generally are eligible, or should not vote when other members are included with him in a motion. If a member never voted on a question affecting himself, it would be impossible for a society to vote to hold a banquet, or for the majority to prevent a small minority from preferring charges against them and suspending or expelling them (61, 63). Perhaps you should show this thread to your management company. As someone else, Dr. Stackpole, I believe, said, if someone is claiming you cannot vote, ask that person to show you the rule. And keep in mind that your parliamentary authority is presumably the current 11th edition of RONR, not some other book. The quotes I provided are straight out of the book.

Agreeing with my colleagues, you absolutely have the right to vote on filling the vacancy unless your organization has a superior rule which prohibits it. In addition, if there is some controversy as to whether or not you may vote, it is your board, not your management company, which has the right to make that decision. However, RONR is quite clear: you have the right to vote. There should be no controversy.

I agree with Joshua Katz that it is ultimately up to the members of your organization to interpret its bylaws. That is normally done by someone raising a point of order, the chair making a ruling on the point of order, and then the ruling being appealed to the assembly. It takes a majority vote to overturn the ruling of the chair. The vote of the assembly is final. Now, as to your question of when a person who pays dues after September 1 becomes a member: I PERSONALLY am inclined to interpret the provision as meaning a person becomes a member when he pays his dues and complies with what other requirements exist for becoming a member, but he is simply not being charged dues for the last four months of the year. It is not unusual for organizations to prorate or waive dues for new members who join near the end of the membership year. That is my own personal opinion having only read that one part of your bylaws. Others might well disagree. It is not based on anything in RONR. it is important that you keep in mind that that is my personal opinion only. There is no "general understanding" of what that provision means. Since I am not a member of your organization, my opinion is worth exactly what you are paying for it. Mr. Katz is exactly right when he says it is ultimately up to your organization to interpret its own bylaws. Mr. Huynh is correct when he says that you should amend your bylaws to remove the ambiguity if the meaning is not clear to your members. Edited to add: I note that article 3 section 1 says that members in good standing are members whose dues are paid in full, or words to that effect. The way I view it, a member who joins between September 1st and December 31st and pays the dues for the coming year has paid all the dues which the bylaws require her to pay. I would say such a member's dues are paid. All of the dues which are being charged have been paid.