Josh Martin

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.

However, done is done - it's too late to raise a point of order now - p. 250.

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

Well, the By-laws trump anything found in RONR.  However, a motion to "Amend Something Previously Adopted" could be made to bring the issue back up at a next meeting so I wonder why the reconsider option was placed into the By-laws in the first place (other then it was placed there by someone who did not understand parliamentary procedure.)

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.

It appears that somewhere in that answer you imply that the assembly, by majority vote, can order the secretary (or another individual) to cast the vote of the assembly in favor of a motion that requires a two-thirds vote.  That can't be right.  

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.

1. Where page 477 of PL states, "This is not a vote by ballot, but is a viva voce vote, and cannot be done legally if the by-laws require the election to be by ballot," is it your opinion that General Robert is referring to the order, the vote cast as a result of the order, or both of these things together as an inseparable unit?  It seems to me that he could be treating them as a single act for the purpose of deciding the question on the motion. 

It does seem that they are treated as a single act.

2. RONR (11th ed.), p. 283, ll. 4-5, states, "The object of these motions is to obtain a vote on a question in some form other than by voice . . ."  Section 30 doesn't provide for changing TO a voice vote by majority vote.  PL states that the process of electing by ordering the secretary to cast the ballot of the club is, at least in some part, definitely a viva voce vote.  RONR (11th ed.), p. 44, ll. 30-33, states, "The vote on a motion is normally taken by voice, unless, under certain conditions, it is taken by rising or . . . by a show of hands."   p. 45, ll. 23-26, states, "Other methods of taking a formal vote are used only when expressly ordered by the assembly or prescribed by its rules."  p. 443, ll. 7-12, states, "if only one person is nominated and the bylaws do not require that a ballot vote be taken, the chair, after ensuring that, in fact, no members present wish to make further nominations, simply declares the nominee elected . . ."  

 

It seems to me that the rule that provides for the chair to simply declare the nominee elected is a rule of order that would require a two-thirds vote for its suspension.  Clearly, another method of voting could be ordered by the assembly, by majority vote.  But this doesn't appear to be a case of changing the method; it appears to be a case of changing the RULES for a particular method.  

 

Here's a fun example:

 

Motion to vote by ballot = majority vote

 

Motion to vote by ballot with the nominee with the fewest votes dropped from the list of nominees for succeeding ballots = two-thirds vote

 

Motion to skip declaring the lone nominee elected until after the secretary has pretended to vote = two-thirds vote

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."

3. Let's say an organization has adopted a rule that, in the case of an office having only one nominee, the secretary shall cast the vote of the assembly for that nominee.  If, during the election, a motion is made to skip this step and have the chair simply declare the nominee elected, wouldn't this require a suspension of the rules by a two-thirds 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.

4. Isn't the rule governing an election by voice vote in which there is only one nominee strikingly similar to the rule for the approval of the minutes when no (further) corrections are offered?

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.

While the minutes were being considered, would it be in order for a member to move that the secretary cast the vote of the assembly to approve the minutes?  If so, what vote would be required to adopt such a motion?   

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.

Is it a majority vote, just like other motions relating to methods of voting?  Is it a majority vote even if the question to which it applies requires a higher vote?

Yes to both questions.

With you indicating that it's out of order if the bylaws require a ballot vote, we know that it is actually deciding the question, not just a ceremonial gesture.  However, you indicated (by quoting a starship captain) that it's merely a ceremony that decides nothing.  Which is it?

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.

What if the secretary were not a member of the assembly, would the motion to allow him to cast the vote be in order?

Yes.

Who can move to reconsider the vote cast by the secretary (in situations where it can be reconsidered)?

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.

Would a motion to not allow negative votes on a main motion be in order and require a majority vote? 

No.

Without suspending the rules? 

 

Would this be an incidental motion, covered under section 30?  To vote by instructing the secretary to vote? 

I think it would be an incidental motion, yes, and I don't believe it would require suspending the rules.

I thought you concurred that this was a ceremony that decides nothing.   

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).

Well, OK. Then if the secretary declines to cast that vote which isn't really a vote, there can be no repercussions against the secretary?

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.

Doesn't this imply that the assembly is thus denying the secretary his individual rights as a member to abstain and to vote for any eligible candidate?

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."

Sure, it's no more out of order than the chair responding to a solicitation for unanimous consent "to donate $100 to the ABC Foundation" by saying, "since there is no objection, the secretary will cast a vote for the motion that $100 be donated to the ABC Foundation . . . All secretaries in favor, say aye . . . The aye has it.  The motion is adopted."

 

I maintain that it's out of order.  

 

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.

In summary, it appears that this strange mechanism of having the secretary cast a vote is not a vote at all.  It is merely a ceremony that decides nothing.  

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