Dan Honemann

I agree with Godelfan too, except for the notion that the motion would be a negative one if the sale of donated items or products were already prohibited. If this were the case, it would appear that a motion "that we do not allow donated items or products for sale at the Store" would be out of order as being tantamount to a motion to reaffirm the already existing policy (RONR, 11th ed., p. 104, ll. 24-31).

There is nothing in RONR which says that you, as a committee member, may not ask a question at a meeting of the Selectmen without committee approval, provided, of course, that you do not indicate that you have received such approval. Come to think of it, I gather that you asked your question at the same meeting at which your committee was asked to undertake this assignment, and so it must have been obvious that you were asking your question on your own.

Not that it matters much, but there seems to be some confusion here as to whether this was a meeting of the membership of this association (which seems to be indicated by the reference to it as the "Annual Meeting of our Condo Association"), or a meeting of the association's board, since the question asked is "Can the Board Secretary deliberately omit the letter and the actions of the Board from the minutes?" Or perhaps this was one of those instances in which it was assumed that both the board and the full membership were meeting at the same time (but let's hope not). In any event, I agree that what is said on page 471, lines 20-24, is entirely irrelevant.

If one bothers to spend about five seconds thinking about this, it will become apparent that, under the circumstances described, the only decision that the assembly will be called upon to make is to choose, voting by ballot, which one of the three nominees will fill the partial term, or, to put it another way, which two of the three nominees are to fill the two open positions for a full term. It's not possible to make either of these choices without automatically and simultaneously making the other. A ballot election to decide which one of the three nominees is to fill the partial term will finally resolve both questions. A ballot election to decide which two of the three nominees are to fill the two open positions for a full term will finally resolve both questions. Please take to heart, however, what Shmuel Gerber has said in his most recent post above. Based solely upon the facts which have been posted, I believe that conducting either of the two ballot elections which I have described above is a viable option, but the facts which have been posted are not sufficient to support an opinion upon which anyone should rely.

The motion in the example is "that the open portion" of the meeting be declared ended. So, will a motion, while in executive session, to come out of executive session conflict with this motion that the open portion of the meeting be ended whereas, if the motion had been, instead, "that this open portion" of the meeting be declared ended it would not?

I don't think you will find anything in RONR which says that your Mayor cannot nominate someone to fill your seat (your term having expired) before nominating persons to fill seats that have been vacated by resignation, moving away, etc.

I can't imagine what might have prompted this response. We have all agreed that a ballot vote must be held to determine which of the three nominees will fill the partial term. I just don't believe that having a ballot vote in which voters are instructed to vote for up to three persons from among the nominees (which is what Mr. Merritt has told us he has in mind) is the way to go about doing it.

Well, I'm not at all sure that the rule as written means that they must be instructed to vote for three nominees when the ballot vote is not being held because there are more nominees than positions to be filled, but is being held simply because there is a partial term to be filled.

Well, I'm not in a position to really have a decent opinion as to what, exactly, these bylaws require, but it seems to me that a ballot vote is required only because a determination has to be made as to which of the three nominees is to fill the partial term. Suppose, under these circumstances, voters are instructed to vote for the one who they want to fill this position?

Do you think that instructing voters to vote for only two of the three nominees to fill the two full terms which have just expired will require a suspension of the rules?

But what do you mean by this? Is it currently understood that, when the ballot vote is taken, voters will be instructed to vote for up to three nominees (as they would be if there were, say, six nominees), or will they be instructed to vote for only two of the three nominees to fill the two full terms which have just expired?

Well, I'm not all that fond of the idea that it will take a motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted to adopt a motion to come out of executive session under any circumstances, and hence that smiley face of mine.

But let's say that the motion that was adopted to go into executive session was to do so in order to consider and vote upon a certain proposal, and the motion is made to end the executive session before that proposal has been disposed of. Won't this motion to end the executive session require more than a majority vote for its adoption? Yes, sure it will.

Presumably you have these records because you're the Secretary. Keep them. You'll be able to unload them some day on your successor.

Your organization's constitution or bylaws certainly specify what officers are required and how they are to be elected. What do they say?

I'm sure this isn't the first time your organization has held these elections. How have they been handled in the past? Nothing in RONR requires that people indicate an interest in being nominated or elected prior to the election.

Yeah, guys like Ohm and Newton did cause lots of confusion, and all this talk about natural law, and the law of averages and probability and stuff like that just makes my head swim.

Yes, it is certainly true that applicable procedural rules prescribed by federal, state, or local law must be adhered to as a matter of common parliamentary law (as embodied in RONR), but this does not mean that these federal, state, and local laws are in any respect dependent upon parliamentary law for their authority or enforceability. Applicable procedural rules prescribed by federal, state, or local law will trump any conflicting rules which an organization may adopt for the governance of its proceedings, no matter what.

I agree that there are quite a few people who do not understand what is meant by the terms “parliamentary law”, “common parliamentary law”, and “general parliamentary law” (including some who ought to know better), but this is not the fault of anything said in RONR. There are no rules of parliamentary law which are binding upon any organization’s assembly except those rules which it has itself adopted for the governance of its own proceedings, and those which may have been imposed upon it by a parent body (if it has one). Rules of parliamentary procedure imposed upon an organization by applicable law are not rules of parliamentary law. They are, most often, a part of the general corporation law of the state in which the organization is incorporated, although they may also be found in a number of other kinds of laws applicable to particular entities such as community associations, condominium regimes, unions, etc.

That sentence on page 415, lines 22-23, is simply a statement of fact, and not a rule of any kind. The tellers are, for all intents and purposes, a special committee appointed by the chair to distribute, collect, and count the ballots, and to report the vote. Nonmembers have no right to attend its meetings, although its parent body may certainly give it instructions in this regard.

I disagree. An organization's assembly may suspend rules of order which it has imposed upon itself, but rules adopted by an organization's assembly having specific application only to its subordinate boards or committees cannot be suspended by those boards or committees.

This motion that the secretary cast the ballot of the assembly for an unopposed candidate is certainly not in order if a ballot vote is to be taken, but if such a motion is made and adopted, and the secretary complies, and the chair declares the unopposed candidate elected, no fundamental principle of parliamentary law will have been violated. If the bylaws do not require that the vote be taken by ballot in this instance, the candidate thus declared to have been elected will have been validly elected. If the bylaws do require that the vote be taken by ballot, the election will be null and void, but this is not because any fundamental principle of parliamentary law has been violated.

If I read the facts correctly, the committee members do serve for a fixed term, or until their successors are elected.

I'm inclined to agree with John. If the bylaws do, in fact, say that the assembly will elect the recipient, then the assembly must elect the recipient.

As best I can recall, no one has suggested that the president cannot take action or delay taking action if he is convinced that it is necessary in order to comply with a motion properly adopted by the board but not recorded in the minutes. He will, of course, be doing so at his own risk. If, as you expect, the record is eventually corrected, then all will be well. On the other hand, if the board disagrees with him as to what did, in fact, occur, then he will have a bit of a problem on his hands. That sentence on page 16 (it's on p. 16 of the current edition as well), is more than a mere footnote, and is echoed elsewhere throughout the current edition (e.g. p. 3, l. 32 to p. 4, l. 2; p. 10, ll. 25-30; p. 125, ll. 10-11; (d) on p. 251; p. 263, ll. 12-14; etc., etc.). How many times do we have to tell you something?