Josh Martin

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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."

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."

The latter. Based on the facts presented, no.

Based upon the facts presented in this thread and the previous thread, it doesn't look like it has happened yet.

I would note that the motion to Reconsider requires only a majority vote for adoption, while Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted requires a 2/3 vote, a vote of a majority of the entire membership, or a majority vote with previous notice. So an assembly might be fully aware of ASPA and adopt rules permitting Reconsider to be made at the next meeting in order to make it easier for the assembly to change its mind (within certain time limits). That doesn't necessarily mean your guess is wrong, but there is conceivably a reason for such a rule other than failing to understand RONR.

Yeah, I didn't think that one through at first. Since this is taking the place of the vote to adopt the motion, it would need to be adopted by the same vote as the vote required to adopt the motion in question. As you may have guessed, my thinking on this evolved in the process of having to answer your questions. It does seem that they are treated as a single act. I suppose that's one way of looking at it, but as you just pointed out in your previous question, General Robert appears to view the entire process as "a viva voce vote." Yes, I think so, and to your follow-up, no, I can't currently think of a good reason to distinguish that from the current situation. There are some differences. In an election, the assembly could order, for instance, that the vote be taken by ballot instead, to give members the opportunity of casting a write-in vote. That's not really an option for approving the minutes. Yes, I suppose so, and a majority vote would be required. If the vote failed, the chair would declare the minutes approved. I suppose the same thing would happen for an election with one nominee, unless the assembly promptly ordered a ballot vote or something.

Yes to both questions. The assembly's vote to order the Secretary to cast the ballot is what decides the question. The act of the Secretary casting the ballot is a ceremonial gesture. Yes. As we've just discussed, the "vote" cast by the Secretary isn't a real vote, so there is nothing to reconsider. The usual rules for the motion to Reconsider apply to the motion to order the Secretary to cast the "vote" - it must be made by a member who voted on the prevailing side. No.

I think it would be an incidental motion, yes, and I don't believe it would require suspending the rules. Yes. Which is why my position is that it should not be done, but there is no rule which prohibits it (assuming a ballot vote is not required).

No, I wouldn't say that. If the Secretary refuses to follow the legitimate orders of the assembly (no matter how silly those orders might be), the assembly would be within its rights to discipline the Secretary.

No. Tim correctly pointed out that "having the secretary cast a vote is not a vote at all. It is merely a ceremony that decides nothing."

I find some basis for the argument that it is out of order for the chair, on his own initiative, to order the Secretary to cast the vote of the assembly rather than following the appropriate procedure. I see no reason why it would be out of order for the assembly to adopt a motion ordering the Secretary to cast the vote of the assembly in an election (assuming a ballot vote is not required) or for any other motion.

Exactly. Therefore, I maintain that it is in order - but pointless.