Richard Brown

Paul, I'm of the opinion that such a motion does need a second.  RONR explicitly says that motions made on behalf of a committee by the committee chairman do not need a second, but there is no similar exception for a motion made by a member based on an officer's report.

22 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

I'm not sure the motion is in order at an annual meeting at all. It would seem to me that the rule requires that removal be done at a special meeting.

Richard, I think the reason for the OP's question is that the rule regarding removal specifically refers to "a special general meeting," and the question is what vote sest would be required to remove a director at a regular annual meeting of the general membership.

I agree. And I agree with the first paragraph of your response, too.

FWIW, some authorities, such as AIP's "The Standard Code",  do rank established custom above the rules in the parliamentary authority. RONR does not. It ranks custom last. 

This strikes me as really no different from any other elections. Although nominations are debatable, the elections themselves are not debatable.

I think you will have nothing but trouble as long as your bylaws say RONR shall be used "as a guide".

Why not use the time-tested language used on pages 580 and 588 of RONR?

I imagine the intent  of some of your members is to give custom a higher standing than it is given in RONR.  It seems to me that if that is the issue, that you can add language, after the standard language about RONR controlling whenever not in conflict with the society's bylaws, add "or established customs".  That would elevate your established customs to a step above RONR.  I don't recommend it, for the reasons you stated, but it is an option.  The chair, or the assembly if there is an appeal, would decide on a case by case basis whether something is in fact an "established custom".

It's ultimately up to your organization to interpret its own bylaws.  We cannot do that or you.  We can help you with what RONR says and means. 

Having said that, my own opinion, for whatever it's worth, and without having read your bylaws in their entirety,  is that the vote required to remove a director from office is two thirds of those members present (not two thirds of those present and voting).  That is a specific provision which usually prevails over the more general provision about majority votes.  In fact, the  provision about majority votes even says "unless otherwise provided by the articles of bylaws".  Well, the two thirds of the members present provision provides otherwise and controls.... in  my personal opinion.

1 hour ago, g40 said:

Seems to me that the motion to "do" something should have included authorization to "pay for" the something.

Don't you think the authorization to pay for the something could be implicit in the motion? For example, if the motion is to purchase a Toshiba laptop computer model xxxx from Best Buy for $500, don't you think that includes authorization to pay for it?

6 hours ago, Guest Amy said:

A motion was passed for an organization to do something.  It passed.

Then another person made a motion to pay for the something.  It did not pass.

Should the 2nd motion had been accepted?

 

What do you mean when you asked if the second motion should have been "accepted"? Are you asking whether it should have been allowed on the floor or are you asking if it should have been adopted?

Did the first motion provide, either directly or indirectly, that the "something" would be paid for if it cost money? For example, if the motion was to purchase something, that carries with it an implication that the something will be paid for.

A little more information would be helpful.

Agreeing with Dr. Stackpole, it takes a majority vote to reopen nominations unless it is done by unanimous consent.

2 hours ago, Kim Goldsworthy said:

   

Page 308 letter C assumes that the resignation is one which has no conditions, or which has no future effective date.

Page 308 assumes a resignation is an unconditional resignation. -- No  conditions.

34 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Baloney.

43 minutes ago, George Mervosh said:

You're assuming p. 308 assumes that.  And that makes no sense.

I agree with Messrs Honemann and Mervosh. I see no such limitation in RONR. Also. There are no "conditions" to this resignation. It is simply prospective, meaning it takes effect on a future date. Such resignations are quite common with elected officials, in business and in private voluntary societies. It makes for better planning and easier transitions.

A little more information would be helpful. But, based on what we have been told, tend to agree with Reverend Ed.  I don't see anything wrong with submitting the letter of resignation by email. The issue is, unless your bylaws provide otherwise, a resignation does not become effective until it has been accepted or the society has had a reasonable opportunity to accept it. The mere act of submitting the resignation is not enough unless your bylaws specifically say that a resignation is effective when submitted. Also, a resignation may be withdrawn prior to being accepted or placed before the society.

Joejk, you said the"action was carried out". Does that mean that the society has already done what the motion proposed to do? If so, I would say it ought to be in the minutes as an act of the assembly or else the officers and/or members who carried out the act could wind up being personally responsible if it cost the society any money. 

As to whether members who were not at the meeting in question "should" vote, I remind you that members always have the right to abstain. It is an individual choice of each member.

It's one strange way to conduct an election and to count votes!

BTW, neither you nor this article has told whether the rules specify exactly how many or what percentage of votes shall be deducted for each specific infraction. In other words, something like this: "Campaigning inside a polling place shall carry a penalty of 2% of the vote total for each instance in which it occurs".

Or do these strange rules leave it up to the election commission to decide how many votes to deduct for various violations?

These rules are in the bylaws and not separately adopted rules, correct? If these penalties are not in the bylaws, it is possible that they violate your bylaws.

It's all very strange indeed.

But, like Josh Martin keeps saying, I think you need a lawyer, not a Parliamentarian.

Christopher, do your bylaws or rules actually require deducting votes from candidates accused or convicted of improper campaigning? If so, is the penalty for various offences spelled out? We really need more information in order to answer your question.

Nothing in RONR authorizes deducting votes from a candidate because of violating a rule. Under RONR, votes simply are not deducted from candidates for "bad behavior". Any such penalties would have to be contained in your own bylaws or rules.

Nothing in RONR requires advance distribution of information prior to a regular meeting unless it is something which your bylaws or the rules require previous notice of. Any such procedure would have to be found in your own rules or customs.

Nothing in RONR prevents the secretary or any other member from Distributing information pertinent to an executive session to the members prior to the meeting. That is something else that would have to be in your own rules. 

As you know, if you are incorporated or otherwise subject to state procedural laws, those laws will take precedence over RONR.

You seem to be doing the best you can to get the president and secretary to send out the information in advance of the meetings. If that is required by your rules, a member might also raise a point of order in addition to moving to postpone items or setting adjourned meetings if the matter can't wait until your next regular meeting. If there is currently no written rule requiring advance distribution, and that is something the members want, you should consider adopting such a rule.

I agree with Mr. Goodwiller. I believe that a resignation becomes irrevocable when it is accepted, regardless of the"effective date" of the resignation. Acceptance and effective date are two different things.

P.S.  There is a reason RONR suggests on page 439 that at conventions and in large meetings where balloting can be time consuming, that "The elections should take place early in such a meeting, to allow time for any necessary additional balloting for any office for which no candidate receives a vote sufficient for election."

There is a lot of wisdom and experience expressed in the 716+ pages of RONR.  I suggest your society consider officially adopting it.... and following it.

Edited to add:  Other business can be conducted while the tellers are tabulating the ballots.

D Llama, I tend to agree with what I think be suggesting in your last post:  namely, that the ballots be counted and the winners announced, using plurality voting if a candidate fails  to receive a majority vote.  Keep the ballots intact until the next election.  And tell anyone who doesn't like it to file suit.   btw, that's not in RONR.  That's  in "Richard Brown's suggestions for dealing with unanticipated messy situations not specifically dealt with in RONR".

You gotta do something.  You gotta move on.  You can't just sit back and do nothing and let the organization wither  away. I imagine that's not an option.

Another alternative is to have the president or the board declare "no election" and let the current officers serve for another year.  This would not be my preferred approach, but it's an option.  And, again, if a member objects strongly enough, he can file suit.

btw, when you do finally have a legitimate meeting, it might be a good idea to ratify the announced results of this election and all actions taken by the officers and board in the interim.  Maybe not necessary, and maybe not even proper under RONR, but I think I would suggest it anyway.

btw, I suspect this sort of thing isn't all that unusual.  I was at a large convention once when something almost identical happened:  The meeting had exceeded the time allowed in the contract for the meeting hall before the ballots had been counted. The organization had to vacate the meeting hall. So, they adjourned and the officers tellers continued counting the ballots in another location and the winners were announced an hour or so later.  Everyone accepted that outcome. 

Sometimes you just gotta do what you gotta do.

Edited again to add:  Actually, I probably wouldn't say "if you don't like it, sue us".  I would just say, "This is  what we did".  Period.

I think the answer would depend mostly on your bylaws.   The exact wording on terms of office is important.  You might see FAQ # 20 on the main website for more information.  http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#20

Adding to what Mr goldsworthy said, there is nothing in Robert's Rules of Order that prevents a nominating committee from nominating more than one person for a position.

Edited to add: Like Rev. Ed, I wonder why the chairman does not vote. Does some rule prevent it or is it just a custom? If you are following RONR, in a committee the chairman votes along with the other members.

Guest Tyler, it looks to me like your question is not one of parliamentary procedure but rather one of what criteria and standards are going to be used for selecting attendees. Other than that, I really can't add to what my colleagues have said. If you want a parliamentary procedure answer, the tried-and-true method is simply majority vote. For example, potential attendees could be nominated and then selected by majority vote the same way an organization would elect the members of the board of directors. If you have 10 nominees but can only select five attendees, the first five to attain a majority vote are selected. That's just one example of how you could do it.

6 hours ago, Kim Goldsworthy said:

See Section 30, "Motions relating to methods of voting and the polls" (page 283).

On page 286, under the paragraph "Closing or re-opening the polls", The Book says that the polls can be re-opened by majority vote.

There is your answer.

If you had a majority vote to open the polls or re-open the polls, then no rule of Robert's Rules of Order will have been violated.

 

I think it is important for Guest Patricia to keep in mind that if it was the general membership that set the deadline for returning ballots, the board likely has no authority to change what the general membership adopted at a membership meeting.  If the board set the deadline, then perhaps the board can change it.  But, if the deadline was set by a vote of the membership, only the membership can change it unless the bylaws or state law grant the board supreme power to reverse a vote of the membership.

Agreeing with Mr. Harrison, the proper recourse is for a member, at meeting, to raise a point of order that the election violated the bylaws and is therefore invalid . Void.

You are correct that s bylaw requirement of a ballot vote cannot be waived or suspended. 

It appears to me, based on the information provided, that only your board can fill that vacancy 

34 minutes ago, Guest Barry said:

who has the power of the exective board to call an emergency meeting?

Your bylaws may use the term"special meetings" rather than emergency meetings. 

If your bylaws do not provide for special meetings, and if this is truly an emergency, the members may still gather and informally  decide to take whatever action they deem necessary. However, the members who vote to do that do it at their own risk and can be held personally liable if the board or the membership does not ratify the action at a proper meeting. Such action is not an official act of the organization unless and until it is properly ratified.