Drake Savory

On 10/4/2023 at 9:00 AM, Rob Elsman said:

There are infrequent "courtesy motions" for which calling for the negative votes is impolite,

Can you elaborate on that?

A motion to approve the minutes is not out of order.  Suppose there is a change that needs to be made yet the motion to approve the minutes is on the floor.  It seems like you would have to Amend the motion to adopt to amend the minutes but for the life of me, I just can't think of what that amendment would look like.  If the motion is "I move to approve the minutes" would the amendment be something like:

I move to amend the motion to add at the end "with striking out Tom Landers and inserting Sonja Henie."

From personal experience, the first step is to get a sense of if the members want to play by the rules.  You can do all of the education you want and have members make points of order all day long but if the Chair and the members as a whole don't care or worse, actively fight against the rules because "they get in the way" then anything you do is doomed to fail.

Is it possible under RONR that the Chair could explain his concern and ask if the assembly desires to move to Suspend the Rules to remove him from the Chair for the duration of the motion?  In other words let the members decide if they trust his impartiality.

On 9/21/2023 at 7:17 AM, Josh Martin said:

According to our bylaws the VP takes over for the president in the interim. This is the section that addresses the vacancy further  

Takes over or becomes President?  If the latter then they would be your new IPP when a new President takes office.

Unfortunately, you were relying on a Chair that did not know parliamentary rules nor how to control a meeting.  You were fighting a losing battle from the beginning.

On 9/10/2023 at 4:04 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

And I think you meant 50:9.

Yes.  The space after the bulleting threw me.  And considering how well many Chairs know their bylaws I think it is a good idea for the committee chair in question to check just in case.

On 9/10/2023 at 12:22 PM, RLE56 said:

The central methodist church even adresses the fact that different conferences use different versions, which affects how abstentions are counted,

That has nothing to do with different versions of RONR.  It deals with if the vote threshold is a majority vote or a majority of the membership.  And an abstention is never counted but the number of "aye" votes may change thus an abstention has the effect of a "no" vote.

100 members.  45 vote aye.  30 vote no.  25 abstain

Majority: More ayes than nos.  Motion passes.

Majority of the membership: 51 ayes needed.  Motion fails by 6 votes.  

Quote

The current 12th edition specifies that when there are voting requirements based on the number of members present (as in this case), an abstention can function as a negative vote. This is because in these instances, per Robert's (12th Edition), the total number of votes to be counted is based on the total number of eligible voters (professing members) present at the meeting at the time of the vote. However, in Robert's Rules of Order in Plain English, and in several previous versions of Robert's Rules, a vote to abstain is simply not counted as a vote at all.

I'm assuming one of our parliamentarian historians can tell us which edition was the first where a majority of the membership is a voting threshold because I'm pretty sure it was in my copy of the 11th edition.  I just looked up the 4th edition and that threshold is not there.  Re-reading this a few times the author is right but completely misunderstands what's going on and as such misleads the reader.

As a further example of the author having no clue on RONR voting and where they get it wrong

Quote

Similarly, let us say out of 100 one hundred professing members present, 59 ballots are marked in favor of the motion to disaffiliate, 30 ballots are marked against, and 11 are left blank or marked as abstentions. The total of ballots cast is 89. Sixty votes are still needed to reach a 2/3 majority to pass the motion. The motion fails.

Quote

In the case where the 12th edition is being followed, however, the outcomes would be different.

In the first case (60 ballots for, 30 against, 10 abstentions), the total number of ballots to be considered is 100. This requires 67 votes to reach the 2/3 majority required to pass the motion. The motion fails. For the same reason, the motion also fails in the second instance (67 votes are still required). 

Nope.  Abstaining has never counted as a no vote when 2/3 are needed.  If twice as many vote aye than no and so the first example is correct in that it meets the 2/3 threshold.  Analysis of the second vote is completely wrong unless the association has some special rule requiring that vote to have 2/3 of the membership voting in the affirmative but there is no motion in RONR requiring that.

So here is the payoff question: what will your vote require?

Quote

Paragraph 2553.3 states “The decision to disaffiliate from The United Methodist Church must be approved by a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of the professing members of the local church present at the church conference.”

A two-thirds vote would NOT count abstentions at all.  A two-thirds vote of the membership attending would have abstentions have the effect of a no vote.  The way this is written, it is the first and not the latter.  If out of 100 attending 50 vote for disaffiliation, 20 vote against affiliation and 30 abstain then the disaffiliation passes.  However I suspect given the guidance of your link, the DS would say it failed.

Is this meeting being run under RONR?  It sounds almost like for this ad-hoc meeting/vote that you are using the Church's rules.  Is there any document saying you use RONR or is that an assumption you are making?

On 9/10/2023 at 9:40 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

And if this is a standing committee (which it sounds like) then the creation of one or more standing committees in the bylaws means that any new standing committees must also be done in the same manner.

50:8 allows standing committees to be created by resolution, not just in the bylaws, IF the bylaws allow it.

Question:  Suppose the call to the meeting says it starts at 8pm.  At 8pm the DS stands and begins his speech without calling the meeting to order.  Is there anyway the assembly can call the meeting to order themselves at the appointed time?  I assume a Point of Order wouldn't work since the meeting hasn't started.

Is your Chair actually enforcing RONR or letting her speak whenever she wants (probably without a motion on the floor), letting her speak up and interrupt Board meetings, etc.  If so, then the first step is to get the Chair to enforce the rules.

What exactly do the bylaws say about the committee?  Are all of the members currently on the committee required to be on it under the bylaws?  Are the duties of the committee in the bylaws?  Something doesn't make sense to me - why can't the organization just make a new committee and move some members and duties over to that new committee?

On 9/7/2023 at 9:34 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

The fact that the chair is making motions suggests that you're using Small Board Rules, where the rules of formality and impartiality of the chair are relaxed. 

Not if it is made to the main body (and wouldn't the main body have to accept the resignation and not the Board?), hence my question.  Wouldn't the President have to relinquish the Chair in order to make their motion to be Relieved of Duty?

If the President moves to be Excused from Duty (aka resigns), would the Vice-President be the one in the chair until the motion is disposed of?

On 7/31/2023 at 5:09 AM, Josh Martin said:

Okay, but it is not accurate to call them "members" at all

Totally agree.  I used that word based on the OP and that many organizations don't understand that ex-officio members are members and so they would probably use that term incorrectly.

That is why I put "members" specifically in quotes.  They would not be members with the right to vote or (in my example) make and second motions even if they were called that.

Assuming ex-officio "members" do not have the full rights of membership such as have the right to attend meetings and debate but no other member rights then can it be done outside the bylaws?

Parliamentary law aside, the real question is as far as the state is concerned, to be counted as a yes vote do you actually have to ... you know ... vote?

It still would be 5.  4 is not more than half.

What happened when the Chair presented the agenda for adoption?  Did anyone try to amend them?

On 7/24/2023 at 4:17 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Do you doubt the intent of the rule or its efficacy?

I would say the efficacy but as many here have said, that is a legal issue as to if they can count votes that way not a parliamentary one.

Following up on this, suppose a body knows the minutes need approved before the next meeting.  Is there any reason they can't make a committee then and there of all present then adjourn the meeting, wait a few minutes for the Secretary to finish them up and send them out digitally, then in committee approve them?

On 7/25/2023 at 12:35 PM, J. J. said:

I hate to tell you this, but a lot of groups do not want to go to the time and possible expense of an adjourned.

Plus how many bodies know a thing even exists?

On 7/24/2023 at 10:29 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

Second, the value in getting approval a week or two sooner is de minimus, and is offset by the necessity of the secretary's having to prepare the draft in a shorter time, which might hinder rather than aid the goal of accuracy.

 

I gotta go with JJ here.  There might be a time where a body must approve the minutes before the next meeting.  Let's say a body needs to give their parent organization wants a copy of the minutes showing election of their delegates (someone complains the procedure used was wrong) and the next meeting is after the delegates meet?  Yes that is contrived but it goes to show that it is possible for a rare occurrence to happen where the body cannot wait until the next meeting to approve the minutes.    I don't think the OP was implying this was to be a regular thing but rather as needed.