Josh Martin

No, there is no need to include other information. Minutes for meetings held in executive session, even those for meetings concerning discipline, follow the same rules as for minutes generally. Additionally, who attended is not part of the standard information in the minutes so far as RONR is concerned. The fact that the regular chair and secretary were present (or the names of their substitutes, in their absence) is recorded, but a full list of attendees is not.

The chair would say something to the effect of "Mr. X is elected by acclamation." This is generally done separately for each position. I believe it could be done for all uncontested positions at once, but only if no member objects. This is only the appropriate procedure, however, if the bylaws do not require a ballot vote, or if they do require a ballot vote but provide an exception for uncontested positions. If the bylaws require a ballot vote and provide for no exceptions (as seems to be the case in your organization, if you are the same Penny as in this related thread), then a ballot vote must be taken. Additionally, for future reference, it is generally best to post a new question as a new topic in this forum, even if an existing topic is similar.

Well, in that case, I don't know why he called it "#66," but there is nothing on that page which supports the board member's point of view. There is no rule in RONR which requires the board to appoint the runner-up, but if the board is authorized to fill vacancies, there is also no rule which prohibits it.

No, there is no such rule. Your board member appears to be referring to Section 66 in the 4th Edition of ROR (which was written in 1915), but it says no such thing - nor does the current edition. No. While there is no rule which requires the board to appoint the runner-up, there is also no rule which prevents the board from doing so. (Assuming, of course, that the board is authorized to fill vacancies in the first place.)

I started in student government in college. At my first meetings, I had little idea what all of the terminology meant. I proceeded to order RONR and RONR In Brief. I read the latter text before my next meeting, and the former over the course of the summer. I found the RONR forum the following summer as a way to keep my skills sharp while Student Senate was not in session. After graduation, I joined NAP and, over the course of the next couple of years, became an RP and then a PRP.

This is not correct. A motion to Suspend the Rules is required to permit a non-member to speak in debate. A majority vote is sufficient to let a non-member speak when no motion is pending (assuming, as you have noted, that this does not interfere with the order of business).

Not exactly, but the chair can and should declare the nominee elected by acclamation, unless the bylaws require a ballot vote (this doesn't seem to be the case here) or the assembly orders a ballot vote. The best way would be to nominate someone else, which would force a vote. Failing that, the assembly can order a ballot vote, and members can then write-in votes for someone else. By voting for someone else. No. No. Correct. Since your society apparently feels that it would be acceptable to simply elect no one to this office, has the society considered whether the office is even necessary? Amending the bylaws to remove this office would solve this problem.

No, unless your bylaws provide otherwise. So? Even if this is correct, they don't have a quorum for this vote, unless their bylaws provide otherwise. So far as RONR is concerned, a quorum is based on the number of members who are present. Even if their bylaws authorize absentee voting (which is not entirely clear), this does not automatically mean that absentee votes count toward the quorum.

Yes. Minutes must still be taken in executive session, but those minutes must be approved in executive session. Members are subject to punishment for disclosing what happened in executive session.

The chair of the committee. There is no such thing in RONR as a "joint meeting." If an assembly wishes to accomplish such an objective, it will need to either develop appropriate special rules of order, create a new committee which consists of the members of both bodies, or hold a mass meeting and invite the members of both bodies. Who the chair would be depends on which of these options is used.

It would seem that, as usual, a motion to Suspend the Rules (when applied to a rule of order) requires a 2/3 vote for adoption, unless there is some reason why this would be otherwise. I can think of no such reason in this case. Yes, as I noted back in Post #6, I concur that it would generally be preferable to reopen nominations, but there may be cases where the assembly does not wish to reopen nominations or this is not permitted under the organization's rules.

RONR states that, "When for any reason it is desired to reopen nominations, this can be done by a majority vote." (p. 288) In the absence of anything in the text which states otherwise, it would seem reasonable to conclude that this means exactly what it says. So I believe it would be in order to make a motion to reopen nominations even if the motion maker's intent behind this motion is to permit further speeches on existing nominees. Whether doing so would be a good idea is a very different question. So what is your opinion of what the rules in RONR actually do require? I'm warming to the views that they require a suspension of the rules (and therefore a 2/3 vote), but I think suggesting that unanimous consent is required to reopen debate on a question which is not yet decided goes too far. When RONR requires unanimous consent for an action, it is generally in order to protect the rights of individual members (such as, for example, suspending the rules to waive the reading of a document before the assembly for action). I'm not sure that there is a right to be protected from prolonged (or even futile) debate on elections. (RONR does require unanimous consent to reopen debate when a vote is retaken for the purpose of verifying the result, but I think that is a very different situation from reopening debate when there is no result.) I won't weigh in on what RONR ought to say, but it is certainly clear to me that in assemblies where the sorts of issues we are discussing are likely to arise (the best example I can think of is political conventions), it would be highly advisable for the assembly to adopt its own rules on these subjects... and such assemblies generally do so. I think we can all agree that, if the assembly reopens nominations, nominating and seconding speeches in favor of new nominees are perfectly in order and appropriate. I don't believe anyone has suggested otherwise, even Mr. Novosielski. As he notes in his first sentence, it is his opinion that "if no member wishes to offer an additional nomination, then there is nothing more to debate." Presumably, then, this means that there is something to debate if members offer additional nominations. I don't agree with this position, but let's not recast his position as going even further than it actually does.

Is retaking a ballot vote because no candidate achieved a majority really comparable to retaking the vote by another method, though? It seems to me that the reasons to retake a vote by another method would be to verify that the result is accurate (such as when retaking the vote by a counted vote or counted rising vote), to ensure that members can express their true opinions without fear of reprisal (in the case of a ballot vote), or to ensure that members are held accountable to an interested constituency (in the case of a roll call vote). It would seem that there is not generally an expectation that further debate is necessary (or even desirable) in such cases, and so it seems reasonable that a suspension of the rules would be required to reopen debate. Conversely, in the case of a ballot vote where no candidate or proposition receives a majority, the vote is retaken not because the assembly wishes to verify exactly what decision was made, or to (hopefully) modify the basis on which members cast their votes (potentially altering that decision), but because the assembly has yet to make a decision at all. In such cases, it seems apparent that some members will need to change their minds in order for the assembly to make a decision. There are a number of ways in which this might be accomplished, and RONR addresses a few of them, but further debate seems like another logical method for the assembly to attempt to reach a decision. If a suspension of the rules is always required to reopen debate in such cases (meaning that a 2/3 vote is always required), this would permit a minority of greater than one-third to block this method. Granted, there are other methods the assembly could use, such as reopening nominations, or adopting a motion to Recess so that members can discuss these issues outside the formal context of the meeting (which seems to be a common strategy in conventions), but limiting the application of another avenue the assembly could use to address the issue seems unwise.

I'm actually pretty satisfied with the "generally speaking" answer and, with those principles in mind, I believe the examples I was thinking of "make the answer rather obvious on the face of it." But to make sure I'm not terribly off-base in my thinking... The example I was thinking of for debate which was clearly in order: "Candidate A's statements show how she is willing to work with others to accomplish the organization's goals. Conversely, Candidate B's approach seems more confrontational, and I don't think that is what our organization needs. I urge you all to vote for Candidate A." Conversely, the example I was thinking of for debate which was clearly not in order: "I am concerned about the integrity of our candidates. Certain statements in the materials distributed by Candidate C raise questions regarding his integrity, and..." Essentially, I think the bottom line is that a bit more latitude is afforded in elections since the candidates are the subject of the pending question, but the rules pertaining to germaneness and decorum are still in force, and so, as you say, "a great deal of care and discretion" is required with regards to adverse statements about candidates.

Is it in order for members to make statements opposed to or critical of candidates, or is it only in order to make speeches in favor of candidates?

It's perfectly correct if the assembly adopts its own rules on the subject. Debate is virtually unheard of for elections in most assemblies I have been a part of (or served as a parliamentarian for), but my experience is consistent with yours in the rare few where debate is a regular feature of elections. Yes, that was my conclusion as well. So I think Extend Limits of Debate may not be the only answer, but it is the appropriate tool if the assembly wishes for members who have exhausted their right to debate on the election nominations to speak in debate.

I don't understand what you mean by "accepting all the suggestions for filling the blank."

I agree with your conclusion that a question is pending until the election is complete, but I don't agree with your reasoning. The assumed motion "that ______ be elected to the specified position" is not itself debatable "in the same way that a main motion is debatable separately from amendments to it" or even in the way that a pending motion is debatable after a blank has been filled. Unlike in those cases, this motion is not considered separately. Once the blank is filled, the election is complete automatically - no further debate is in order on the assumed motion. It's more like filling a blank in a motion which has already been adopted. Making nominations, however, does not fill the blank. These are merely suggestions to fill the blank. The blank is not filled until the election is completed. Therefore, the question of filling the blank is pending until the election is complete. That certainly seems like one option. I'm contemplating whether there may be others. I'm not sure that a 2/3 vote should always be required.

Presumably, the assembly would debate who is the best candidate for office. Certainly. My question was whether debate was in order between rounds of balloting. What I had in mind was primarily further debate on the existing nominations. I quite agree with Dan that, as a general rule, it would be preferable to reopen nominations. There may be circumstances, however, where the assembly does not wish to reopen nominations, or where the assembly's rules do not permit this.

Would it be possible for the assembly to reopen debate without reopening nominations?

Suppose that an assembly conducts a ballot vote for an election and no one is elected after the first round of balloting because no candidate receives a majority vote. Is debate automatically reopened?If not, is a motion to reopen debate in order? What vote is required?

I assume that Rev Ed means to say that if the bylaws do not say that the non-voting member cannot make a motion (or enter into debate, or exercise other rights of membership), then the non-voting member can do those things. As noted, this may or may not be correct, depending on what the bylaws say. It is obviously correct that if the bylaws provide for a "non-voting member," that person cannot vote, but I'm sure we can chalk that up to a typo.

This may or may not be correct. See Principle of Interpretation #8. It depends on how the position is defined in the bylaws.

First, see FAQ #2. Ex-officio members are voting members unless your bylaws provide otherwise. Now, if your bylaws actually do provide for non-voting members, it will be up to your organization to interpret its bylaws. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 588-591 for some Principles of Interpretation. I'd pay particular attention to POI #4 and POI #8. There's no such thing as a "non-voting member" in RONR, so it doesn't have a direct answer for this question.

Yes. The assembly is free to include a proviso in a motion specifying that the rule shall take effect at some other time. There is nothing in RONR which prevents this from happening, and I'm not sure the motion was even necessary. It seems to me that, unless your rules provide otherwise, it is already the case that a new member must pay any required initiation fee, notwithstanding the fact that the individual was previously a member. Even if it was the case that your rules previously exempted members who rejoined from paying the initiation fee, it is still in order to change that rule, and new members would then need to pay the initiation fee when they rejoined, notwithstanding that the rule was different at the time that they left the society. As noted, this motion takes effect immediately unless the motion provides otherwise. Now, it's possible that this motion conflicts with something in your organization's rules. Since it's a union, it's also possible that there is some applicable law on this subject. Both of these issues, however, are beyond the scope of RONR and this forum.