Alexis Hunt

Yes, that's absolutely fine. There's two caveats with this approach though:

The first is that trying to always do business in an informal consent-based approach can lead to situations where people don't feel comfortable raising dissenting opinions. If one person feels like the other three agree, so they have to agree as well, it can be helpful to make it into a proper vote so that they have a chance to register their discontent. It's one thing if you use unanimous consent and people raise objections when appropriate; quite another when it ends up intimidating people into not raising their voices in opposition.

The second is that it is almost more important to make sure that any decisions you're making be properly phrased and that everyone understands what's being agreed to. I've seen too many meetings where people talk about something at length, someone says "Does that sound good?", everyone agrees that it does, indeed, sound good, and then every packs up and leaves with a slightly different understanding of what actually was agreed to. Sometimes this isn't so bad, but sometimes it can be disastrous ("No, I thought you were booking the venue!").

p. 45, ll. 4-9, says "The chair must always call for the negative vote, no matter how nearly unanimous the affirmative vote may appear, except that this rule is commonly relaxed in the case of noncontroversial motions of a complimentary or courtesy nature; but even in such a case, if any member objects, the chair must call for the negative vote." If there is true unanimity, then the motion could also be adopted by unanimous consent, see pp. 54-55. On the other, hand, abstentions should never be called for, p. 14-19.

It's also worth noting that a vote count is only recorded in the minutes if the vote is explicitly counted per p. 470, l. 29 to p. 471 l. 3. In other words, record the totals only if both the number of votes in favour and against are counted up and the chair announces the numbers. While this should normally done for a two-thirds vote (see pp. 401-402), most votes are uncounted, so the minutes should simply say "the motion was adopted" or "the motion was defeated". The decision to count the vote is up to the chair alone, unless ordered by a majority vote of the assembly (p. 410, ll. 26).

2 hours ago, mjhmjh said:

I've checked the larger organization's database and we're in there as a chartered member. The larger organization's policy is that every club adopts the standard constitution upon being chartered and that only the larger organization can amend the standard constitution. That's why I think the standard constitution is in effect, but we're just ignoring it.

If the wording is exactly as you describe, then it's possible that the requirement only takes effect on newly chartered clubs and your club predates it, so it never applied to your club.

But we generally don't do interpretation of bylaws/constitutions on this forum, so I won't delve deeper.

For greater clarity, RONR does not require that nominees leave the room at any point in the proceedings on an election. While they may do so voluntarily, a member of the assembly has a right to be present and they cannot be forced to leave. Likewise, they are welcome to participate in debate on the nominations.

In order to contest an election after the fact, it must be over a violation of great significance (explained somewhere around p. 253, if memory serves). Certainly, unless something that happened here was in direct violation of your bylaws, there was no breach of that severity. So it is too late to contest in any case.

You should also dig into things such as whether or not your club was grandfathered when the standard club constitution was put into place, given an exemption, or whether the standard constitution is merely a helpful guideline and clubs are free to adopt another constitution.

It's also possible that your club has the standard constitution but is simply unaware of that fact.

Under Robert's Rules, the fact that someone is a member of the board of directors has absolutely no impact on their rights at a member meeting. They either are a member (as your bylaws require) or are not. If they are a member, then they have exactly the same rights to vote, speak, make motions, and count towards quorum as any other member, no more no less.

To accept mail-in ballots, your bylaws must prescribe a mail vote. Moreover, while your bylaws could overrule this, Robert's Rules cautions that it is an extremely bad idea to mix votes cast by absentees with those cast by those present. If your bylaws provide for a mail vote without specifying that the votes are to be mixed with votes from those present, then that means that the entire vote must be taken by mail. In any case, however, getting to your question, quorum is (unless your bylaws state otherwise) measured by the number of people actually present at the meeting. Even if your bylaws provide for a mail vote to be counted alongside votes from the meeting, that does not change the number of people who showed up. There may, after all, be other items of business brought forward of which the absent members are unaware.

3 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

I can envision situations where I believe it would be in order. An example would be if the membership is hearing rumors that the board, which is authorized to act between meetings, is planning to adopt a resolution to enter a float in the parade but the  membership does not want to enter a float in the parade.  The membership could adopt a motion to not enter a float in the parade. The board within be prohibited from adopting a motion  to enter the float. 

As an alternative, the membership could probably adopt a motion directing the board not to enter a float in the parade.

I would rule the first out of order and the second in order. The effect of negativing the first is not clear: is the board now compelled to enter a float? But the second is clear that no direction was issued, and so the board retains discretion.

2 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

I continue to find this puzzling.

However, in this context, I just wanted to point out that what we're saying may not be of all that much help since the question appears to be about a public body, and likely there are some statutes imposing rules.

On this subject, my local city council has interpreted this so strongly that committees are not permitted to recommend not to proceed with the item, since all recommendations must be in the form of a motion for council to adopt.

Did you actually read the page?

p. 264 is quite clear that it is indeed a basic right, but one that can be curtailed such as by a motion to limit debate and vote, or a motion for the previous question.

Hmm, I believe it would be in order to reconsider it, if it's not part of an agenda. Which further raises the question of why it requires a 2/3rds vote in the first place.

Are there any circumstances where denial of the right to debate can create a continuing breach?

P. 251 says that a continuing breach is established where an action was taken in violation of a basic right of an individual member. P. 264 says that debate, except as limited by the appropriate subsidiary (or corresponding incidental main) motions, is a basic right of an individual member. Is it possible for a decision to be made in such a fashion as to violate this?

What of a member who is not permitted to move amendments on a motion, since making a motion is also an individual right?

8 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

No, this would certainly not be sufficient. The purpose of notice is to help members determine whether they wish to attend the meeting. So it doesn't do much good if the notice is not distributed until the meeting begins.

Agreed. The call of the meeting is usually the notice which goes out to inform members that the meeting is occurring. It might be reasonable in the case of a convention to interpret the call as being an agenda distributed several weeks in advance, rather than the initial call for delegates, but certainly the amendment would have to be circulated to delegates well in advance.

(There is no requirement to send it to non-delegates since they are not voting members of the convention and therefore have no right to notice.)

If nobody objects, then the consent is implicit (though not ideal). Any member of the committee could raise a point of order that a nonmember cannot speak at committee meetings.

It does not directly ignore it, but it does neatly avoid it. What is the purpose of requiring a two-thirds vote to move the scheduled time if such a maneuver is possible?

The Hobby Dressmaker's Association is having its regular meeting, which has a scheduled adjournment time of 6 pm, adopted at the beginning of the meeting. 6pm comes, and some members wish to continue the meeting until all business is finished. So a member, Z, moves a motion to continue past the adjournment time. The chair cites p. 374, ll. 17-21 in ruling the motion out of order. The chair states that the adjournment can be rescheduled to another time, or the pending question alone extended for a defined period, but that it is out of order to simply ignore the scheduled adjournment entirely. Z then offers a motion to reschedule the adjournment to 9pm, and this is defeated 15-12, a two-thirds vote required.

Undaunted, Z then notices ll. 21-25, and moves to fix the time to which to adjourn to 6:05 pm. The chair cannot find a reason to reject the motion, and allows it. The motion is adopted 15-12, adjourns the meeting, and promptly convenes its adjournment.

Is Z's motion to fix the time to which to adjourn in order? If so, why can this motion, which is in this context effectively just a motion to ignore the adjournment time, be adopted by majority vote while rescheduling the adjournment to another time, a weaker proposition, requires a two-thirds vote?

I've been to a convention with thousands, and there multiple tellers were definitely required.

5 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

1.  The assembly can decide what to do.  If it adjourns with business pending, that item will come up as unfinished business at the next session, if within a quarterly time interval (and each person can again speak twice).  The chair does not unilaterally decide.  Most assemblies will choose to move all pending questions, though.

I would add to this that if the assembly has a prescheduled adjournment time, then:

1. It is only binding if the adjournment time was actually adopted by the assembly. Even if an agenda is circulated in advance, it has no bearing on how the meeting proceeds (in any respect), so the only way that the assembly adjourns at that time is if someone makes a motion to adjourn and the motion is adopted by majority vote.

2. Once the prescheduled time comes up, even if it is binding, then the assembly can vote to continue the meeting by a two-thirds vote or to set up an adjourned meeting by majority vote.

5 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

2.  No, he cannot decide this unilaterally.  Either the assembly needs to adopt a motion to that effect, or a special rule of order can be made (so that it applies at more than one meeting).

Additionally, this motion requires a two-thirds vote. If it's made only one one specific motion, then it is undebatable, but if it's going to apply for the rest of the meeting such as "I move that speeches be limited to 4 minutes for the rest of the meeting," then that motion is debatable and can only be made when no other motion is pending.

Duplicate post.

11 hours ago, J. J. said:

In a counted standing vote, with tellers, there would be numbers, not marks.  A teller would count one row, and if recording them, in writing would just right down the number of people voting yes, then moving to the next row.   That would be repeated by the no votes.  He may just report the number, orally, to the president as he is taking the count or keep a running total in his mind and report the total number of votes.  Even if he would give a tellers report in writing, it might be something as simple as "64 yes, 33 no."

I think the scenario being contemplated is an assembly large enough to warrant multiple tellers, each maintaining a separate count of a section of the assembly, and then summing the totals at the end.

Duplicate topic.

Your bylaws should specify the method of notice for a convention. In absence of that, the notice would have to go out in the call for the meeting that is distributed to all members, or at least to all delegates, in advance of the convention. It is up to your organization to interpret that in your own context; ultimately it is the convention (assuming it is the highest governing body of your organization) that decides how to interpret the bylaws.

1. Only in a small board or a committee. In other assemblies, the chair cannot make motions.

2. This stinks of bad procedure. Once a motion is made by anyone, it becomes the focus of discussion. You cannot move on to another topic until the motion has been debated and either voted on or otherwise disposed of, such as by a motion to postpone it to the next meeting. That said, if the meeting somehow ends, then the motion properly carries on as unfinished business to the next meeting where, because it was still pending, consideration resumes automatically without anyone having to move it again. If for some reason the original mover no longer wishes to be on record of their motion and someone else would like to, A could ask permission to withdraw their motion, then B could make the same motion.

You skipped over the critical text "If written records are prepared in counting the vote, such as tellers' tally sheets, they are subject to the same retention and recount rules as ballots." By implication, these are the only parts of a standing vote subject to recount.

If this is a single organization of which both councils are a part, then the correct procedure may be to amend whatever governing document defines them as separate. It may not require any votes on the part of the councils being merged.