Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Bryce Frederick

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

324 profile views
  1. Here are a couple of sites I found with the 4th edition. At least that's what they say. Thanks for the help! http://www.iclafco.com/media/managed/pdf/032615_12B_Roberts_Rules_of_Order_FullVersion.pdf http://www.rulesonline.com/
  2. Thanks. I looked but couldn't find it. I tried Google books and a simple web search. How do I find in online?
  3. I'm sure you all know that the 4th edition was published in 1915. Oh well, the question is the same!
  4. In the section titled Special Meetings (§9), page 91, lines 31-34, RONR, 11th Ed., it says this: "Notice of the time, place, and purpose of the meeting, clearly and specifically describing the subject matter of the motions or items of business to be brought up, must be sent to all members a reasonable number of days in advance." Would someone with a 4th Edition published in 1925 confirm that the same language exists in that version? I'm doing a historical study on something that happened in 1933, and I want to be sure the meeting notice language was the same. Could you quote the same sentence and give me the page number? I know this is a lot to ask! 😊 Bryce
  5. I tried the google search option. I'm specifically referring to a nonprofit corporation. I know in the state of Tennessee (where I live) there is no legal requirements that members of a nonprofit corporation to be 18 or older to vote. I understand, however, that some states have such a limit. So I was just trying to find a list. I'll try some more searching! Thanks.
  6. I understand that it is the case that some states have a minimum voting age for voting in a corporation meeting. I can't find a reference anywhere that shows states and these voting ages. I realize this isn't exactly an RONR question, but I thought you might know the answer. Thanks!
  7. Yes--a committee and not officers. I'm basing my current view that it's okay based Daniel H. Honemann's earlier comments about page 17, lines 19-27 and some other posts. Thanks!
  8. Thanks for your help. I'm still trying to get my head around all of this, but I trust the experts! With as many potential nominees as we have, it would take many separate ballots (I think) to reach a majority for all 11 candidates. So even though it goes a bit against sense of what seems right, suspending the rules and going with a plurality vote ought to go better (or at least more easily).
  9. Thanks. It will be ballot voting, and I'm only guessing on the number of candidates.
  10. Thanks. On p. 263, ll. 4-7 it states "unless the particular rule specifically provides for its own suspension, or unless the rule properly is in the nature of a rule of order as described on page 17, lines 22–25." In my example, the rule doesn't provide for its own suspension in the bylaws. On page 17, ll. 22-25, it states: "Rules of order—whether contained in the parliamentary authority or adopted as special rules of order—can be suspended by a two-thirds vote as explained in 25 (with the exceptions there specified). Rules clearly identifiable as in the nature of rules of order that are placed within the bylaws can (with the same exceptions) also be suspended by a two-thirds vote; but, except for such rules and for clauses that provide for their own suspension, as stated above, rules in the bylaws cannot be suspended." I'm still unclear. Page 17 says "Rules clearly identifiable as in the nature of rules of order that are placed within the bylaws can . . . be suspended" but then is says, "rules in the bylaws cannot be suspended." Those statements seem contradictory.
  11. Yes. You are right, we aren't electing officers, only members of a committee. But since our bylaws say "The vote of a majority of the members present in person at any annual or special meeting and entitled to vote thereat shall decide any question brought before such meeting . . .", I think we are aren't able to use plurality voting.
  12. Not 300 nominees, an estimated 300 voting members. I'm guessing there will be 30 nominees. Thanks!
  13. Thanks. Yes, clicker voting would speed things up--by our assembly isn't quite that sophisticated. Our bylaws are a mess, but we are currently stuck with what we have. I don't really understand this statement you made: However, each ballot (with at least one candidate selected) counts as only one vote towards majority, whether 1 candidate or 11 are selected. So getting a majority may not be as difficult as you envision. Each member can vote for 11 candidates, but if there were 300 voting members present, each candidate would need 151 votes. Correct. It seems like with perhaps 300 nominees, it might take a fair number of ballots to get a majority for all 11 candidates.
  14. Our assembly is electing members to a committee. There are 11 open positions on the committee, and it is expected that perhaps 20, 30, or more individuals will be nominated (nominations must be submitted before the election meeting). Our bylaws state: "The vote of a majority of the members present in person at any annual or special meeting and entitled to vote thereat shall decide any question brought before such meeting . . ." So our bylaws require a majority vote. There is no allowance in the bylaws for preferential voting. Question #1: Can this "majority vote" rule in the bylaws be waived or suspended by a 2/3 vote of the assembly? I see in RONR (p. 260) it says about Suspending the Rules: "Can be applied to any rule of the assembly except bylaws." So perhaps I've answered by own question. Question #2: What is the simplest way to get 11 people elected with so many nominees? It is likely about 300 members will be present and will participate in the voting. I imagine this would take many rounds of ballots to reach a majority for all 11 slots. Even imagining the mechanics or revoting on multiple ballots seems challenging. Is a vote by a plurality acceptable (RONR pp. 404-405)? Any ideas on this would be appreciated!
  15. Understood. Thanks very much for your comments. Some organizations have not determined polling periods--at least not the organization in question. I suppose the polling period could be announced by the Chair at the meeting, and if anyone objected they could appeal the decision of the Chair. Or the body could vote on a polling period. In the case I presented, the organization plans on distributing ballots (which will be nonreproducible due to their printing features) based on the membership rolls of the organization at tables just outside the meeting hall doors. Only members will be allowed in the meeting hall. So the ballots will be given to members, the members' names will be checked off the membership list, and no other ballot will then be given to that member. Once inside the meeting hall, the members would presumably only have only the one nonreproducible ballot given them. They could give that one ballot to another person (although this would be odd, it could be done), but it would seem that in this situation, there would be little reason to suspect foul play in casting ballots. I read the following in RONR (11th Ed.): "(a) In meetings where only voters are present, members can remain in their seats and drop their ballots into a receptacle passed by a teller, accompanied by another teller as watcher and checker;" (pp. 414-415). It would be an unusual indeed to have a seating arrangement where a teller could physically walk between two rows, in front of the seated members, holding the receptacle, as he/she passes it to each member. Usually the distance between rows of seats would not allow a teller to walk in front of the seated member with the respectable as members drop in their ballots. In theater- or lecture-style seating, authorities recommend (1 2) 12-22 inches between rows of seats. Even at 22 inches, a teller could not walk between the rows passing the receptacle for ballots without stepping on toes, tripping over feet and purses, and basically being a nuance to those seated. It's unclear to me how the procedures outlined in the sentence from RONR quoted above could be carried out in a meeting room with standard, theatre-style seating. Perhaps it cannot.
  • Create New...