Drake Savory

20 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

"During a meeting the work of the parliamentarian should be limited to giving advice to the chair and, when requested, to any other member."

But can he be compelled to?  Interestingly the next line starts, "It is also a duty ..."  So does that mean giving advice to the chair and members is a duty and the next sentence refers to an additional duty OR does it mean that in addition to the work (that may be optional?)of giving advice there is other work that is a duty?

Even if the Board doesn't send notice, I don't think that would bar the member from presenting the amendments.  At worse there would be an issue for anything requiring previous notice.  Of course at that meeting the membership could also prefer charges against members of the Board for not following the bylaws.

So just to clarify, if the election is held during a time NOT at a meeting it would  be out of order to,  at a meeting,  Suspend the Rules to ignore the bylaws for an alternate way to run the election.

Sorry I think that question is poorly worded.  I guess the real question is: is it out of order to Suspend the bylaws to change the rules for actions outside of the meeting since by definition those rules are not rules of order? 

Perhaps a hijack or perhaps not.  The bylaws can only be suspended for an election at a meeting, correct?  If the election were via email or polling place or carrier pigeon then the motion to Suspend would be out of order since it is not business during a meeting.  Is that wrong?

44 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

If the presiding officer believes that it is unlikely that anyone will object, it can be a great timesaver to check that belief. If indeed, there is no objection then the amendment is adopted.

The problem is when EVERYTHING is offered as a "friendly amendment" because of ignorance of the rules.

21 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

No, I don't think my answer implied that your answer implied otherwise either. 🙂 ...or something.

I can envision a case where there was an objection, and during the subsequent debate on the amendment, the mover of the original motion expressed agreement with the amendment.  Although the original mover has no more parliamentary clout than anyone else, the culture of the assembly might be such that members would be inclined to give that opinion more weight.  I think it would be in order to say, "As the original mover, I support the amendment for the following reason(s)...."   Similarly, if the mover opposed the amendment, there's no harm in pointing out in debate that, as the author of the original language, the amendment falls short for <reasons>.

Of course, the vote would still be required, but I don't see a problem with taking advantage when it's available.  Do you agree?

This is exactly what happened at the convention.  The original maker of the motion was given the first opportunity to object and if they didn't it was opened up to the assembly to object.

Personally I think that is a poor way to handle it.  If I were presiding I would have explained the rules the first time it happened and then afterwards say, "There is no friendly amendment in the rules, the motion to amend is ..."

I had always thought that electronic voting needed to be authorized by the bylaws but p 419 would seem to imply that electronic voting through voting machines would be allowed without specific reference in the bylaws.  Imagine this:  a member logs in with a one-time use code given when they sign in* and on one of a dozen laptops fills out their ballot.  Would this be allowed if not approved in the bylaws?  Also, I imagine that a space would need to be allowed for a write-in vote since write-ins are not disallowed in the bylaws.

Assume the method of distributing the code ensures secrecy.

At the latest convention I was at, the Chair not wishing to fight that continual "I offer a friendly amendment" chose to interpret it as "I ask unanimous consent to amend the motion ..."

Thanks.  I missed that he was conducting the meeting.

Here's my question.  Why is the Parliamentarian who is not even a member taking such an active role in running the convention instead of just advising?

No if anyone else has already voted.  Holding his vote doesn't prolong the voting, it would be an abstention.  p 408: Interruption of votes

Did elijah ever trap the chairman when he threatened to resign by saying "I second the Request to be Excused from Duty"?  I've been waiting 5 years to find out.

Let's say that a revote for an election is needed and because of the rules there is a significant delay, in this case it is a vote of the membership so ballots need to be printed and distributed.  In between the election and the revote the bylaws are changed to change the rules of the election such as from majority to plurality or write in vote permitted to not permitted.  Bylaw amendments take effect immediately (unless specified in the bylaw) so could this change affect the rules of the election for the revote?

YES!!!!!!

So in my scenario is it true that A did not win as he did not get a majority of votes cast?

I seem to remember that in RONR invalid votes are counted towards determining a majority when voting for officers.  So let's say A is running against B and no write-in votes are permitted.

A receives 10 votes, B receives 8 votes and C receives 4 write-in (invalid) votes.  A is not elected since they did not receive a majority of the 22 votes.  Am I imagining that rule or is it in RONR?

The whole site is invalidated for that reason.

Thanks all.  This seems to fit with my thoughts.

1)  It is a matter for the membership through their reps at a quorate meeting and not a matter for the board to decide.

2)  The membership* needs to interpret the bylaws and decide if any rules were violated.  If not - no revote.

3)  If so, then the membership* decides if the proper remedy is a revote.  If so it is all or none meaning all of the members and not just those whose votes were in validated.

* through their reps at a quorate meeting.

What do you mean?

The membership reps has the power in the organization.  The board has been the main power simply because the monthly membership meetings are always (yes always) inquorate.

Voting involves a signature and submitting a ballot.  If a member wishes to abstain then they do not sign.  Some of the people sign then choose to abstain creating undervotes but that is not the issue.  Under the bylaws "Ballots will be counted as valid as long as all signatures meet the membership requirement.  Envelopes with more ballots than signatures for that site will be declared invalid." and this year the vote is so close those votes will make a difference.

The argument is that the Site Representatives did not conduct the election properly

" Site Representatives shall have a list of eligible votes in the unit they represent.  Members shall acknowledge receipt of a ballot by signing their name on the signature list.  The voter shall deposit the marked ballot in a designated ballot envelope.  After voting has been completed, the Site Representative shall submit the ballot envelope and the signature list to the custody of the Election Committee or its designated representative. "

since clearly there cannot be overvotes if this is administered correctly and this election had a overvotes therefore the bylaws were violated.   One reason for this is someone may be a member but not on the list.  They can still vote by submitting a membership form but as many Site Reps have the member sign when they return the ballot a couple end up NOT having the member sign if they also return the membership form (no name to sign next to).

My contention is that the forum for this is not the Board but rather the membership (through their representatives) at the monthly meeting to deal with the issue. 

3 minutes ago, reelsman said:

 Oddly enough, people seem to want to know about elections only afterward. It would be better for all involved to get hold of copies of RONR and do your training before an election, so all the contention after the election can be avoided.

So your answer to my question is to invent a time machine.  Very helpful.

Sorry, read as a member of the Board wants a revote saying nothing in the bylaws prevents a revote.

Dude seriously.  If there were rules on revoting in the bylaws do you think I'd be asking here on what the rules are?

But not per se - per bylaws.

There were more ballots than voter signatures.

A group of votes for officers of the organization from certain reporting sites are invalid under the bylaws (votes and voter numbers don't match).  A member of the Board wants a revote saying nothing in the bylaws prevents a recount (yes I know, nothing in the bylaws prevent the President from robbing a bank either).  Noticably absent from these discussions is an actual copy of the Election Committee's rules - instead the discussion is all about "what we have always done",  "what is fair" etc.  The question is, are there ANY circumstances where a body can have a revote of a balloted election of officers assuming the election followed all rules and if so, can it only be selected votes or would it have to be everybody?