Josh Martin

Are absentee ballots counted in determining a quorum? For example, if a quorum is equal to 100 members, but only 90 members are present and there are 15 absentee ballots, does that count as 105 members present in the meeting for a quorum to conduct the vote?

No, unless your bylaws provide otherwise.

OK, George, but as I understood the question, the meeting was only to hold the vote, not to conduct other business.

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.

RONR page 96. Minutes read and acted upon only in executive session. Member punished if he violates secrecy of executive session.

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.

Our committee invited the Board of Selectmen to a meeting to discuss budget- who would act as chair of the meeting? our chair or the chair of the board of selectmen?

The chair of the committee.

It is only a joint meeting if both Committees are going to hold a meeting in the same place at the same time.  In such a case, if there is a member who serves on both Committees could be asked to Chair the meeting (with permission of both Chairmen and the Committees), or the Chairmen could agree amongst themselves.

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.

Well, I suppose a rule that debate cannot (normally) be reopened could be considered in the nature of a suspendable rule of order.  But whether it requires unanimous consent, or a 2/3 vote, or is in order at all, even with a unanimous vote is difficult to determine, since such a motion is not among those listed in the Work.

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.

In any case, since the motion to reopen nominations is clearly available, and by a mere majority vote at that, it would seem to be the preferred path to reach a parliamentary situation where debate is in order. 

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.

That's not how I interpreted what Dan said.

 

And as for me, I believe that if no member wishes to offer an additional nomination, then there is nothing more to debate.

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 I favor the strictest interpretation consistent with RONR, that the reopening of debate (but not nominations) ought to require unanimous consent.  I fear the wrath when I say "ought to", because one's role here is not to suggest what RONR ought to say, but to discern what it does say.  In this case, it doesn't quite say.

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'm not sure I agree. One of the defenses of repeated balloting is that if there are strongly opposed candidates, neither of whom can get a majority, a compromise candidate can be elected. It seems like it would be awfully difficult to convince a majority to even consider the compromise candidate without debate. I suppose it could happen, but more likely, at some point somebody is going to say "Maybe we should just agree to elect Mr. C" whether or not it's in order.

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.

May I go back to the original issue?

 On any question, it may be possible to retake a vote. RONR (11th ed.) p. 285. For example, after after a vote has been taken by voice, it would be in order to move that it be taken by a counted vote. Would anyone suppose that, without suspending the rules, debate could be re-opened on the question after the body had voted to take a counted vote but before the counted voting had actually begun?

 

It seems to me that the answer to this should be no different in a situation in which, after taking a voice vote, a motion is adopted to take a ballot vote. 

 

Now, in the case of a ballot that fails to decide an issue (which could be an election or could be a vote on some other motion, such as selecting a city for a convention), another ballot is required to follow.  What would be the basis for assuming that debate on the question could be resumed between ballots?  The book is clear that between ballots a candidate may withdraw.  RONR (11th ed.), p. 441, ll. 5-8.  Similarly, it states, "When for any reason it is desired to reopen nominations, this can be done by majority vote". Id. p. 289, ll. 7-8.  Presumably privileged motions, such as to Recess, could be made and voted on. 

 

But I can see no other basis, without suspending the rules, for a motion to re-open debate between ballots, any more than to re-open debate between a voice vote and a counted vote.

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 find this too broad a question to answer without involving too much typing on my part. If you will provide a number of examples of what you have in mind, both as to exactly what the statement is and the context in which it is made, it will make a response much easier. It may also make the answer rather obvious on the face of it.

 

Generally speaking, relevant information of an adverse nature concerning a candidate may be included in a request for information addressed to a member making a nominating or seconding speech in favor of that candidate, or in a nominating or seconding speech in support of another candidate. However, I think a great deal of care and discretion is required in this regard.

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.

In my opinion, debate on nominations should be limited to speeches which are made when making or seconding (even although not required) nominations. This, I think, is indicated by what is said on pages 206 and 207 of PL (and on pp. 165-67 as well).

 

I'll admit that nothing in RONR says that this is a rule of some sort, but there is precious little in RONR concerning debating nominations.

Well, I think a legitimate reason for moving that nominations be reopened might be in order to make a seconding speech in favor of a candidate already nominated.

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 has been the practice in every organization I have been a part of to ascertain who is running before entertaining debate (and the debate initially has usually included questions asked of the candidates and answered in turn, which I know is not technically correct).

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.

I would say that there is nothing indicating that the election becomes a new question, so absent any motions adopted otherwise, members' opportunities to debate an election do not reset between ballots.

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.

When I referred to filling the blank, I meant to refer to accepting all the suggestions for filling the blank, i.e., the nominations in this case.

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

 There is a question pending until the election is complete. RONR states that "A nomination is, in effect, a proposal to fill the blank in an assumed motion "that ______ be elected to the specified position." (p. 430, ll.4-6), so that motion remains pending after the blank is filled with all the nominations. Presumably that motion is debatable by itself, separate from the nominations, in the same way that a main motion is debatable separately from amendments to it (filling a blank is noted as closely related to the process of amendment (p.162, ll.23-25).  I agree, though, that the only issue that appears to be debatable is the relative qualifications of the nominees. 

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.

I wonder. though, if re-opening nominations is not possible, what kind of motion would one use to re-open debate? Would it be a form of limit or extend the limits of debate?

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.

What is it that would be debated?

Presumably, the assembly would debate who is the best candidate for office.

It would seem to me that during the balloting (i.e votes being cast), debate would be out of order.

Certainly. My question was whether debate was in order between rounds of balloting.

Also, as a general rule, debate is out of order if no question is pending, so...... ????

 

After the results are announced and the election determined to be incomplete, it would seem that there would need to be something pending to debate, and the most likely "something" would be additional nominations.  Did you have something else in mind, Josh?

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.

My assumption is that debate is in order only while nominations are in order.

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?

So, if they bylaws do not say that the non-voting member cannot vote, the non-voting member can vote?

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.

But still any limitations on membership must be found in the By-laws so if the By-laws do not say that the non-voting member cannot make a motion (or enter into debate, or anything else) then the member can vote.

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

Can a non-voting ex-officio member of a committee make a motion?

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.

So as long as the language in the motion itself allows for it, the motion can take effect whenever it is so stated.

Is that correct?.

Yes. The assembly is free to include a proviso in a motion specifying that the rule shall take effect at some other time.

We had many Members pay their initiation fee and become Members in our Union for years,  then they found out they were

legally not required by Federal law to be Members and then excercised their legal right to give up their Membership in our Union and become non Members back in October 2013.

Then in November of 2013, our Executive Board makes the following motion.

Any current non-member who elects to become a Member will be charged the current initiation fee.

So this rule to re-charge the second initiation fee didn't exist when Members excercised their legal right to become

non Members.

Since you say, unless the motion provides otherwise, this motion would then rightfully force non Members to pay a second initiation fee that 

did not exist when they became non Members. 

Does anything in RONR prevent this from happening?  How can an organization change the rules mid stream to penalize or retaliate against Members for becoming non Members.

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.

When does a motion become effective and on what page might I find that language in RONR 11th edition.

A motion becomes effective immediately upon adoption unless the motion itself or the assembly's rules provide otherwise.

There isn't really a good general citation for this, unfortunately. See RONR, 11th ed., pg. 49 for information on the chair's declaration of the result - you'll note that in one of the examples, the chair immediately orders the Secretary to carry out the motion. On pg. 597, the text clarifies that an amendment to the bylaws takes effect immediately upon adoption. If something as important as an amendment to the bylaws takes effect immediately, it stands to reason that other motions would as well.

If other members of your society are claiming that, for instance, a motion cannot take effect until the minutes are approved, they will not find any support for that claim in RONR.

6 persons ran for 3 elected trustee spots, so the fact that he holds two positions eliminates one board position because he holds two spots, this does not violate Roberts Rules in some way?

No. RONR specifically notes that a member may serve in more than one office unless the bylaws provide otherwise.

My question is, was the President under Roberts Rules permitted to run for the Office of trustee because our bylaws state the immediate past president has duties to perform for the President and must assume that position...

No rule in RONR would prohibit the member from running for or serving in the office of Trustee. The fact that he is required to serve as Immediate Past President doesn't mean much, as no rule in RONR would prohibit the member from serving in both positions. It's possible that your bylaws provide otherwise.

...if so must he then be removed from the poition of trustee and the candidate with the next highest number of votes be elected to that position?

If your bylaws provide that the member cannot serve as Trustee and as Immediate Past President, then the election for Trustee is null and void. The candidate with the next highest number of votes is not automatically elected to the position, however, unless your rules so provide. Rather, another election would be held for that position.

If not then since he holds two positions does he vote twice and get paid for both positions?

He only gets one vote, but no rule in RONR would prevent him from being paid for both positions. Your rules may provide otherwise.

This issue is not addressed in our bylaws or the bylaws of the organization which we are subordinate to. 

Well then, as noted, no rule in RONR prevents the member from serving in and being paid for both positions, but he only gets one vote.

Because requesting to be excused from a duty is an incidental motion (p 70, ll. 34-p. 71, ll. 2), would this qualify as one that can be legally done in a quorum-less meeting?

Yes, provided that the request relates to the conduct of the meeting. For example, an inquorate assembly could consider a request for the Secretary to be excused from the duty of taking minutes for that meeting, but it could not consider a request for the Secretary to resign from office entirely.

M. thigpen, the job of minutes is to record what happens.  The minutes do not dictate reality.  Sometimes what the minutes say is wrong, and when that happens,each and every one of the facts that the minutes have misrepresented has not changed.  Every fact is still a fact.  It is, instead, the minutes that misreport those facts that have to be changed.

Sure, but in this case the minutes simply state that the resignation was given, not that it was accepted. So even if the minutes are accurate I don't know how that would mean that the resignation was "automatically accepted."

It was helpful, but did not address the voting question above.

Sure it did. That's where I got my answers from.

"A resignation is a Request to Be Excused from a Duty. It may be withdrawn in the same manner as any motion may be withdrawn -- that is to say, before the proposed resignation has been placed before the assembly by the chair stating the question on its acceptance, it may be withdrawn without the consent of the assembly, but it may not be withdrawn without permission of the assembly once it has been placed before the assembly for its approval."

As I understand the facts, the proposed resignation had not yet "been placed before the assembly by the chair stating the question on its acceptance." Therefore, "it may be withdrawn without the consent of the assembly."

Since the meeting minutes captured the verbal resignation does that constitute automatic acceptance by the board or does the board still have to vote on the resignation

The latter.

Can the remaining board members prevent the withdrawal of the director's resignation?

Based on the facts presented, no.