Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Bryce Frederick

Members
  • Content Count

    39
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

295 profile views
  1. Bryce Frederick

    Minimum voting age in non-profit corporation by state

    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.
  2. 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!
  3. Bryce Frederick

    Elections by ballot: suspending the rules, majority vs. plurality

    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!
  4. Bryce Frederick

    Elections by ballot: suspending the rules, majority vs. plurality

    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).
  5. Bryce Frederick

    Elections by ballot: suspending the rules, majority vs. plurality

    Thanks. It will be ballot voting, and I'm only guessing on the number of candidates.
  6. Bryce Frederick

    Elections by ballot: suspending the rules, majority vs. plurality

    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.
  7. Bryce Frederick

    Elections by ballot: suspending the rules, majority vs. plurality

    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.
  8. Bryce Frederick

    Elections by ballot: suspending the rules, majority vs. plurality

    Not 300 nominees, an estimated 300 voting members. I'm guessing there will be 30 nominees. Thanks!
  9. Bryce Frederick

    Elections by ballot: suspending the rules, majority vs. plurality

    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.
  10. 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!
  11. Bryce Frederick

    acceptable procedures for collecting secret ballots

    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.
  12. What are the acceptable procedures for collecting secret ballots in a large assembly? I've read pp. 414-415 and the rest of the section. I know instructions on folding the ballots, the tellers' observing one-vote-per-person, etc. Would it be acceptable to (1) collect the ballots by passing buckets down each row of seated people, and (2) also collecting ballots in ballot boxes? Or should only one or the other method be used? If using a ballot box or boxes, (3) would it be acceptable for a voting member to complete the ballot in advance of the debate on the motion, and submit it to a ballot box before debate, or are the ballot boxes to be open only after debate is complete? In a case where the motions are known in advance some people might like to vote without attending all of the debate.
  13. Bryce Frederick

    Obtaining Preference in Recognition in Debate

    Thanks! This is all very helpful!
  14. Bryce Frederick

    Obtaining Preference in Recognition in Debate

    In response to Richard, this would be a dismissal "without censure." That's not RONR language, but the bottom-line is that it's not a trial. This dismissal procedure follows the constitution of the organization, but the constitution is weak on the specific rules governing how it is carried out. In response to Daniel, the motion on debate that he referred to on page 196 is being used in the creation of the agenda. That motion doesn't allow for the person facing dismissal to have any input on who those speakers would be. So, for example, in a pro-con, pro-con, back and forth, the cons debating the motion would be whatever member stood up at the microphone at the right time. Perhaps that's the way it should be, but the person facing dismissal would likely prefer to have members who could best articulate in debate the reasons for opposing the motion rather than whomever comes forward. But I get the fact that every members should have access to debate. Thanks for all of your helpful comments.
  15. In RONR, p. 379, it talks about obtaining the floor in debate. Then on page 383 it talks about special cases in large assemblies. It says, “some of the rules applicable to the assignment of the floor may require adaptation, which, pending the adoption of appropriate convention standing rules or special rules of order, the chair may direct.” In a voting situation where an officer of a large assembly is being considered for dismissal as an officer, would it be reasonable for that officer to be allow to provide the Chair with a list of members who had agreed to speak on this behalf? So instead of taking the luck of the draw of who jumped up first or got in line at the mic first, the officer under a dismissal vote would have advocates speak during the “con” debate periods of the debate in a preferred order by ruling of the Chair. If it’s not permissible for the Chair to make that decision, could the officer make a motion allowing those pre-identified speakers to be given preference in speaking? It seems logical that those interested in speaking on his behalf would allow his chosen advocates to speak. On the other hand, those in favor of his dismissal would not want his preferred individuals to get debate preference since it would be advantageous to him. Are there any other solutions to this situation that work in RONR? Thanks!
×