keefe

Thank you all for your responses it had helped me out greatly!

Ok, I am trying to follow here. If the membership feels as though the nominee isn't qualified and chooses not to vote for him/her by leaving the box blank on the ballot that is an abstention? How then would that nominee fail to get a majority vote if blanks are counted as abstentions?

For example, Nominee X and Nominee Y are on a ballot and there are two positions to be filled and election requires a majority vote, there is also a spot for a write in. There are 10 members present at the meeting who cast a ballot. On that ballot 10 checked the box for Nominee X and only 1 checked the box for Nominee Y and there were no write-ins. My understanding is that having not received a majority vote, Nominee Y has not been elected. Is that correct?

On 12/17/2021 at 1:45 PM, Atul Kapur said:

Please note that when you are calculating the total number of votes cast (so that you can calculate how many votes are required to be a majority), that any in category (4) are not counted. 

Atul,

In the instance of category (4) from above in Rob Elsman's post, "cast a blank ballot", is that not in effect saying that you don't choose either of the nominees and therefore it would be counted?

Thank you, I will take a look again. I did look earlier but couldn't seem to find anything pertaining to my question even though I thought I had previously read something similar to your answer.

Thank you! This has been informative and a great help! Would you provide me the page numbers so I can research this?

On 12/17/2021 at 12:07 PM, Rob Elsman said:

Any eligible person who receives a majority vote is elected.  If there are fewer winners than there are seats to be filled, a second round of voting is held.  And a third, fourth, fifth, etc., until all the seats to be filled are filled.

In no case is anyone elected who has not received a majority vote.

Thank you both for your responses!

Regarding the second round of voting and any necessary subsequent rounds, is the nominee that failed to be receive the majority vote eligible for election in the next round? Or are the subsequent rounds only for floor nominations/write-ins?

Each year prior to the Annual Meeting the Nominating Committee will research and nominate candidates to run for positions. Many times, these nominees held the position previously and their term had just expired so they are running again. The Nominating Committee doesn't make it a practice of nominating more candidates than there are available positions open, however, the membership can make a nomination from the floor if they feel someone else may be qualified for the position. Majority vote is required for election.

With that background information here are my questions. For example, there are two nominees on the ballot to fill two open board positions and the some of the membership does not feel that one nominee is qualified and therefore does not check the box next to the nominees' name. The result is that the nominee receives less than a majority of the votes cast in the affirmative. Does that nominee fail to get elected? Or because there are two open positions and two nominees each will get elected regardless of votes received?

Josh,

Thank you for the reply and the link it is greatly appreciated!

I have been a part of a Board of Trustees (BoT) and Church Council (CC) for over ten years. It has always been my understanding that RONR was our parlimentary authority for these two bodies. Our bylaws are silent on any parlimentary authority for any boards, committees, or councils, however, it does state that RONR is the parlimentary authority for all congregational meetings of the Church, so perhaps this is where my understanding came from that it is our authority for BoT and CC meetings.

What has come up is that people are wanting to phone in to meetings or join using WebEx (generically speaking for video conference) and our bylaws make no provision for this. I mentioned that those members would not count towards a quorum because they are not present at the meeting. I have been told by our Chairman that our bylaws only address quorum requirments for congregational meetings of the Church, and he is correct in saying this. He said that the BoT and CC can meet and use apprpriate measures to conduct and do its business as needed. He also stated that formal action can be taken if a quorum is assembled in a manner that the members can be heard and participate in a vote. This all seems resonable but it just seems to open us up to not knowing how meetings are supposed to be ran.

You all know this is a recipe for disaster and leads itself to be very subjective. My question is this, how can I go about encouraging the BoT and CC to adopt RONR as the parlimentary authority?  Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance.

Very informative and very clear!  Thank you all for your responses!

Thank you all for your responses.  It is clear that reports should not be approved, with that being said what harm is there in approving them?  I am not advocating to approve them, but if I am going to recommend not approving them I will be asked why we should change the way it is currently done.

Bruce,

Yes, the reports for the Annual Meeting go out a week in advance.    

Weldon,

Thank you for the feedback, it is greatly appreciated.  And for what it is worth I agree that all reports shouldn't be approved at the same time, the same way I don't agree with casting a unanimous ballot, but I have lost that battle long ago.

jstackpo,

The approving of the TR is what I was writing about, not the Auditor's Report.  It has been common practice at our church to do that for as long as I have been a member.

At our Annual Meeting, in an effort to save time the Chairman asked for a motion to approve all reports.  Whether good or bad, this was done so that all the reports wouldn't have to be read through and take so much time.  However, in that group of reports was the Treasurer's Report and it was approved without the Treasurer presenting the report, which is usually done.  Later in the meeting the chairman was informed that the Treasurer did not give the report and therefore was invited up to give the report.  Upon completion of the report the Chairman asked again for a motion to approve the Treasurer's Report, MSC. 

My question is, how does it get reported in the draft minutes?  Does the second motion to accept the Treasurer's Report get recorded?  Or should it just be left out? 

Any advice is appreciated.  Thank you.

4 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

It can be done at any time the assembly wishes. If no motion is pending, a majority vote is sufficient. If a motion is pending, it would require a motion to suspend the rules, which requires a 2/3 vote.

Josh, are you saying that speaking rights for non-members would be done by following that?  Or would that be to suspend the rules?

And to ask a second question pertaining, if the you can suspend the rules for the order of business can the same be done for other areas of the bylaws such expenditures, voting requirements, quorum etc.?

Thak you for your input!

Hello all,

Our Bylaws provide an order of business for our annual meeting and also states that Roberts Rules of Order be followed at all meetings.  With that being said, if the assembly desires to add something to the order of business can that be done?  If so what is the correct procedure?  Because the order of business is outline in the bylaws I wasn't sure if that can be suspended or amended.  This is a new area for me so I am looking to learn.  In Chapter 2 it would appear as though it cannot be done but I am looking for some insight.

For example, the order of business in the bylaws doesn't have listed "speaking rights for non-members" , if the assembly wishes to give speaking rights to non-members would that be done in new business or in the order of business the call?

Thank you.

Thank you all for your replies and insight it is greatly appreciated.  We will work on amending to make it less ambiguous.

Our church's bylaws state, "the Annual Meeting is to take place during the fourth week of January."  As a church our meetings have always taken place on a Sunday, if not we would never get anyone to attend the meetings.  With that being said, January 20th would be Sunday in the fourth week of January, at least that is what I presume.  On Sunday January 13, it had been announced during church service that our Annual Meeting would be taking place on Sunday January 27,  I look at that it is the fifth week in January. 

As secretary, I had submitted the order of business/proposed agenda on January 11 to our office manager, she puts the meeting packet together to be handed out to the members.  It was noticed that I had put the 20th as the meeting date and I was told that it was going to be on the 27th.  We briefly discussed the article in our bylaws that states when it is to be and she said she would mention it to our pastors.

At this point it seems that nothing could be done to change the date, and maybe nothing should be done, I am not sure.  Or maybe possibly I am understanding the fourth week incorrectly, I am not sure.  I do know that there are members who won't be available for the meeting on the 27th but would be on the 20th.  

I am just looking for some insight or advice in the situation.  Thank you. 

Richard, that is correct, confessing members are just simply members, there are no non-confessing members.  Simply put, we have members and non members   Unfortunately the added "confessing" part can confuse.

Thank you all for your feedback.

Yes, I understand that abstentions are not votes.  The question is about the qualifying part of the bylaw stating 2/3 vote of the eligible confessing members.  Example, previously thirty votes cast and twenty were yes, then that two-thirds would pass the amendment.  Now as it reads, thirty votes cast and twenty yes, but our membership is 100 then that is not two-thirds so the amendment would not pass. Instead it would require 67 yes votes.

Hello,

About a year ago our church had done some Constitution and Bylaw amendments.  Below is a part of our bylaw amendment process.  My understanding of Chapter XIII Voting in Roberts Rules of Order is that two-thirds when not qualified is, two-thirds of votes cast by persons eligible to vote.  Our previous Article IX (the strike through) appears to not have had a qualifying statement, therefore, it would be two-thirds of votes cast.  Now it would appear to have a qualifying statement of two-thirds of the members voting to pass a bylaw amendment.  Example, previously thirty votes cast and twenty were yes, then that two-thirds would pass the amendment.  Now as it reads, thirty votes cast and twenty yes, but our membership is 100 then that is not two-thirds so the amendment would not pass.

I know that ultimately it is up to our membership to interpret what it meant when amending the bylaws but I would appreciate some input on this from anyone.  Thank you.

ARTICLE IX

AMENDMENTS TO THE BY-LAWS

Its adoption requires a two-thirds (2/3) majority of the votes cast.vote of the eligible Confessing Members.

There should be a motion to amend something previously adopted first, another member will second the motion, the chairman then states the question.  Then it is open for debate.  The assembly will then decide whether to adopt/carry or reject the motion.

7 hours ago, Kim Goldsworthy said:

Here is one idea:

• As secretary, you keep the minutes in conformance with Robert's Rules of Order.

Kim,

That is the idea that I like

19 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

Be forewarned:  When you start trying to summarize debate, you start getting into trouble, as Mr. Katz pointed out. 

Richard, thank you for the advice and feedback it is appreciated.

I agree with the above posts, it doesn't make sense to do what is being asked/told of me.  As I pointed out it becomes completely subjective what I would begin to write down, what one thinks is important others may not and vice versa.  Many times at a meeting something is said and a member will look at me jokingly and say "don't put that in the minutes".  I usually respond with "as long as it isn't in a motion I won't."

At this point I will stay the course as I have, writing down what was done not what was discussed.  If the assembly would like for additional notes to be submitted into the draft minutes they can do so when they are presented for approval.

43 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

I mean that, once you type up all those notes, including all the conflicting points, and present that draft, there's going to be a fight about approving the minutes.  People are going to want to amend out what conflicts with their version, and stick in things that are consistent with their version.  Anyone mentioned in other people's versions will likely be saying "that's not what I said" or "you edited what I said so that it means something different" or some variation on that.  

Joshua,

Yes for the same reason that you never put dialogue into draft minutes in the first place.  I appreciate you feedback.