Dan Honemann

I think you will need to quote exactly what your bylaws say about what the nominating committee is to do.

Motions to order the previous question are not in order when another person has the floor.

Immediately prior to asking this question, Anthony quotes me as saying the following on 1/25/2024 at 7:40 AM: "RR 45:59 and RR 45:61 authorizes electronic voting but does not provide associated quorum rules further suggesting that the question of quorum is moot when voting via electronic means." This is what I actually said at that time: "Voting by email is prohibited unless your bylaws specifically authorize it (see 45:56). 45:59 and 45:61, to which you refer, relate to voting by regular mail, and voting by this method must also be authorized in the bylaws (see 45:57)."

Maybe, maybe not.

Nothing in RONR either mandates or prohibits the use of a recording device during a meeting, As you apparently already understand, RONR, 12th ed., says this in 48:6: "The use by the secretary of a recording device can be of great benefit in preparing the minutes, but a transcription from it should never be used as the minutes themselves." As you can see, nothing in RONR either mandates or prohibits destruction of the recording after the minutes have been prepared There may be something in applicable law which prohibits the secret recording of what is said during your meetings, but whether or not this is so is a question you will need to address to a lawyer. It is not a question of parliamentary law. The meeting can begin even if a quorum is not present, but no business can be transacted except for certain procedural actions. In this connection, refer to 40:6-10.

Voting by email is prohibited unless your bylaws specifically authorize it (see 45:56). 45:59 and 45:61, to which you refer, relate to voting by regular mail, and voting by this method must also be authorized in the bylaws (see 45:57).

The answer to both of these questions is yes, but as Mr. Elsman has noted, making and seconding such a motion is not necessary and rather meaningless.

I'll remind you that the significant question is whether the results of a ballot vote have to be announced in full to the assembly, and also, and most importantly, that this is not the thread in which to bring up such a question.

The confusion in this thread all stems from an initial failure to recognize the substantial differences between RONR's treatment of (a) special rules of order (rules which an assembly may adopt to continue in effect from session to session (8:14)), and (b) rules of order that an assembly may adopt to be effective only for the duration of the session in progress, or for a shorter period of time. This confusion was later compounded by an insistence that making a motion to adopt a rule described in (b) and simply calling it a special rule would somehow make it something it was not. I think if you read again all the posts in this thread, keeping these points in mind, it will all become a bit more clear. Or not.

"A motion whose only effect is to propose that the assembly refrain from doing something should not be offered if the same result can be accomplished by offering no motion at all. It is incorrect, for example, to move “that no response be made” to a request for a contribution to a fund, or “that our delegates be given no instructions,” unless some purpose would be served by adoption of such a motion. This could be the case, for example, if the membership of an organization wishes to make certain that a subordinate body, such as its executive board, will not take such action at a later date, or if the motion expresses an opinion or reason as to why no action should be taken." RONR, 12th ed., 10:11

Do your bylaws specifically authorize your board to take votes by email? If they do not, then it is the vote by email that will be null and void (RONR, 12th ed., 45:56).

Well, it hasn't yet been established that this will or will not be a deliberative assembly. When you refer to the "administration" what, exactly, are you referring to? Is this a group that is formally organized in some fashion, and meets from time to time under its own set of rules? When you refer to "we" or "us", who, exactly, are you referring to? And in any event, I can understand the desire that this meeting be conducted under some set of rules. Even a meeting of an unorganized group needs some rules for the governance of its proceedings. Look closely at Section 53 in RONR, 12th ed., especially 53:8-10.

I suppose that it will come as no surprise that I am in agreement with what Mr. Martin has said in his response, but I would also caution that, as Dr. Kapur has indicated, what is said in the last sentence of 25:2(7) is inapplicable. On one occasion (reported in PL, p. 488, Q&A 212), General Robert himself was presented with a situation in which a society's bylaws actually provided that "The tellers shall report to the chair only the names of the persons receiving the highest number of votes." While recognizing that the society had a right to adopt such a bylaw (something with which we will all agree), General Robert went on to say: "I have never before heard of any society’s taking such a step. It puts the society absolutely in the power of the tellers as far as the election is concerned, and if the tellers are unprincipled and in collusion, the election would be a farce. As the object of your by-law is to prevent anyone from knowing what candidates were voted for, and how many votes were cast for each, there is no possible way to detect fraud or to correct errors." If Guest Robert J. is faced with the same situation at this years convention as he was at the last, I strongly suggest that he once again raise a point of order regarding this egregious violation of the rules in RONR, and be prepared to appeal from the ruling of the chair if necessary.

As best I can determine, this isn't the sort of meeting referred to in 9:13 as a "special meeting" unless the "administration" referred to by the OP is actually what RONR refers to as an "organized society" in 1:9. If it is, then this meeting will be governed entirely by rules adopted by the administration, and the group which the OP describes as "we", will have no rights other than those which the administration is willing to grant them.

Under these circumstances, I think this requirement of a roll-call vote may be suspended by a two-thirds vote. I do not think that the provisions of 25:10 are applicable.

"When a vote is being taken, no interruption is permitted from the time that any member has actually voted until all have presumably voted, unless as sometimes occurs in ballot voting, other business is being transacted during voting. For points of order regarding the conduct of a vote, see below (45:9)." (RONR, 12th ed., 45:6)

Your bylaws will need to be amended to allow for proxy voting, but don't do it. It's a terrible idea.

Since you are referring to a board which creates its own bylaws, the rules which it places in those bylaws which are clearly identifiable as rules in the nature of rules of order (a rule such as the one you describe is such a rule), can be suspended by a two-thirds vote, with certain exceptions. One of these exceptions appears to be applicable here. A rule protecting absentees, such as a rule requiring previous notice, may not be suspended if any member is absent. The Board can, of course, change this rule by amending its bylaws, following the procedure outlined in them for their amendment A Board Chair has no authority to suspend a rule on his own initiative,

I'm about to be called away, so I'll say now that, if my impressions set forth above are correct, I think this requirement of a roll-call vote may be suspended by a two-thirds vote. I do not think that the provisions of 25:10 are applicable.

Have you read 47:11?

Well, it seems clear that this board is responsible to a constituency, but am I right in my impression that it adopts its own bylaws and thus has imposed upon itself this requirement of a roll-call vote? Am I right in my impression that this requirement of a roll-call vote is not imposed upon it by any higher authority?

I'm still not clear as to whether or not this board is in any way accountable to any organization or how its members are elected. Apparently it adopts its own bylaws.

Is this board the executive board of a larger organization?

I'm afraid you are going to have to look at exactly what your bylaws and other rules adopted by your organization say concerning the appointment and services of a parliamentarian and the presence of guests at meetings for answers to your questions.