alanh49

On 1/3/2024 at 6:32 PM, Joshua Katz said:

This is incorrect, and the premise of the original question was correct. Voters may select up to 3 choices on their ballots if one is used. Selecting A and B indicates, at least potentially, disapproval of C. On the next round, those who did not want C may vote for write-ins or move to reopen nominations. 

It is true, though, that if a ballot vote is not required, and there are 3 candidates for 3 positions, then the chair will declare all 3 elected as unopposed. It is also true that if they were seeking different positions, and no ballot was required, the chair would declare each elected to their position as unopposed. But here a ballot is required, and so a majority is needed.

I was going to cite RONR 12th ed. 45:36 to prove my point.

But then I read RONR 12th ed. 46:33 which proves your point

So I'll concede that that I was wrong.

If (A) (B) & (C) are all running for 3 different positions.

They are not running against each other. This means they all got a majority of the votes cast for that office or position and were elected.

(A) by a vote of 25 to 0,

(B) by a vote of 21 to 0, and

(C) by a vote of 10 to 0.

There was no need to take a separate  vote on (C) 

As long as a quorum is still present when the vote is taken it doesn't matter who or how or how many have left.

Well, if they win, that is one thing, but if not, it's not going to be much of a defense that RONR now says it was ok to make and adopt a motion to do something illegal 

Well, since no one made a point of order that there was already a motion on the floor when the second motion was made, I think it replaced the first motion. I would also note that the second motion does the first motion was trying to do name the chair.

Well, I never thought of the old rule, the one that said a motion that conflicts with state or federal law is null and void, as so much a rule but more a statement of fact. A Motion of that kind may not be out of order now, but I still think they are void if adopted. 

On 2/8/2021 at 8:51 AM, Richard Brown said:

A two thirds vote is a two thirds vote, not a "two thirds majority vote".  The  two terms are contradictory.  A majority means more than half.  Two thirds means two thirds.  RONR never once uses the term "two thirds majority vote"

But two thirds is more than half so it is a majority. It is a majority of a certain size. The  two terms are not contradictory but adding majority after two thirds is pointless and should not be done.

6 hours ago, J. J. said:

If the society uses an agenda, an announcement that the chair erred would be permissible.  That would not constitute previous notice of anything.  I do not regard this as asking about how to reverse the action. 

I agree with what is written above.

But how does putting on an agenda [that is sent to all members before the meeting] that a motion will be made to amend or rescind the rule on mask not count as giving notice in the call of the meeting?

I think they should rescind the present rule on mask and adopt a new one this can be done in one motion.

11 hours ago, Guest Scott said:

Our by laws state the election of officers shall be held at the annual meeting in Feb.  It also states that terms of officers and trustees shall run from  Feb to Feb.  Our board in a 2 -5 vote at a closed meeting decided to move the election to May.  The membership feels that this is in direct violation of the by laws and that elections should be held or the board removed and new officers and trustees elected.  Can they be removed at the Feb meeting (which will still be held) by a vote of no confidence or other means.

Do the bylaws say they hold office until their successors are elected? Because if does not their term will end in February 

2 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

I very much would like for that to be the case, but, unfortunately, I don’t think it is. 
 

Doesn’t that proposal conflict with provisions in RONR (9:30 and 10:54-55) and also official interpretation 2020-1 to the effect that actions taken at an illegal meeting cannot be ratified? The actions taken by officers and  agents in reliance upon actions adopted adopted at an illegal meeting can be ratified, but the actions taken at the meeting itself cannot be.

For example, a motion  adopted at an illegal meeting to purchase a computer for $1000 cannot be ratified, but the actions of the treasurer in purchasing the computer may be ratified.

I therefore question how, for example, an election of officers conducted at an illegal meeting can be ratified. Perhaps the actions taken by those officers whose election was illegal can be ratified, but the elections themselves apparently cannot be ratified.  The officers are serving illegally. I would think a point of order at a legitimate in person meeting (or in a legal proceeding) that none of the officers have been validly elected would be well taken.

I don’t like this position, but it appears to be the clear position of RONR and the authorship team as expressed in RONR and in official interpretation 2020-1.  
 

So, I’m curious how all of the actions taken at illegal electronics meetings can be ratified in one fell swoop or even in many separate sweeps.

What am I missing in sections 9:30, 10:54-55 and Official Interpretation 2020-1 which seem to say that this type of ratification is not possible?

What about ratification by bylaw amendment? In other words what if the bylaws were amended by adding something  like the following:

Electronics meetings may be or have been held and the validity of any such meeting shall not be questioned merely because it was an electronics meetings.

I would note that well the  Nominating Committee cannot nominate one of its own a members of the  Nominating Committee can be nominated by petition.

So they can run for office but when it comes to filling a vacancy only the  Nominating Committee can do it and because the bylaws do not say that the  Nominating Committee cannot appoint one of its own to fill the vacancy I think it can.

6 hours ago, Nathan Zook said:

I really, REALLY hope this is a typo (based on further discussion).  A 3-year term which begins in 2016 lasts into 2019....I

 

 

Well in this case since it says it is a 3-year term I think 2016-2018 means to the end of 2018 and not the beginning of 2018  

Quote

18 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Are you sure?  

Well, no because we don't know why the OP thought the amendment was out of order and there are cases in which the timeliest rule would not apply.  I was thinking of those cases in which it did apply.

 

 

Well, no because we don't know why the OP thought the amendment was out of order and there are cases in which the timeliest rule would not apply.  I was thinking of those cases in which it did apply.

4 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

An abstention is not a No vote.  In fact, it is not a vote at all.  When you abstain, voting is what you are abstaining from.

But, if you need a majority of the members present to adopt the motion an abstention will have the same effect as voting no

IMO the chair was correct, and the point of order was untimely, but I also think that the appeal was debatable. However, any debate should have been limited to whether or not the point of order was timely and if the chair is overruled the chair would then have needed to rule on the original point of order.    

17 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Yes, but giving notice or being informed that a motion that has already been introduced will be considered at a future meeting has nothing at all to do with the vote required for the adoption of that motion.

Perhaps one might think that this should have something to do with it, but our primary concern here is with understanding what the rule now is, and not what we think it should be.

Ok but just where can I find this rule in Robert's? The one that says or at least implies that postponing say a  motion to rescind made without notice to the next meeting will not change the vote needed to adopt it.

 

 

 

4 hours ago, Alexis Hunt said:

The purpose of a notice rule (even one just to lower the threshold) is to give members an opportunity in advance to know that an item of business will be moved, and give interested members time to ensure their attendance and prepare their arguments

I'm sorry but if that is the purpose of giving notice and I always thought it was how does postponing a motion to the next meeting not also give interested members time to ensure their attendance and prepare their arguments. It seems to me that postponing a motion to the next meeting is tantamount to giving notice that it will be considered at the next meeting.

What you the voters are told that while they may vote for up to 3 nominees they should not vote for the person they want to see file the short term. If the one in 3rd place still has a majority, he is elected, and if he does not have a majority you hold a run-off election in which he is the sole nominee. In which case, the rules in question do not require a vote by ballot.

I haven't been to a meeting at which someone moved that the secretary casting the ballot since the 1960's maybe early 70's and while said motion was always adopted the secretary never did cast a ballot or say that he was doing so.

The maker of the main motion can move to Postpone Indefinitely and speak in favor of the main motion during the consideration of its indefinite postponement. Is that what you're asking?

Where does RONR say that because on p.393 ll.20-22 it says:

"In debate, the maker of a motion, while he can vote against it, is not allowed to speak against his own motion."

I don't see how speaking in support of the main motion isn't the same as speaking against the motion to Postpone Indefinitely.

Does the rule against speaking against your own motion apply in this case because if it does no one who supports the main motion can move to it Postpone Indefinitely just to get more debate time and while if you're against the main motion you could do so more likely than not you'd you'd be making it to kill the main motion and not just to get more debate time.