Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Tapestry

Members
  • Posts

    38
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tapestry

  1. @Atul Kapur and @Gary Novosielski Thank you both for your additional guidance.
  2. Thanks @Gary Novosielski, et al. I'm still grappling with the concept of one ballot being both legal and illegal at the same time, but I'll get there.
  3. @Richard Brown I understand the ballot remains in the count of ballots cast. I'm not certain one vote should be credited to B and I am of the mind (right now) it is an illegal vote.
  4. If the one person who tried to vote twice, marking two votes for B, the entire ballot is invalid, correct? Edited to add: RONR (12th ed.) 45:32 "... Similarly, a ballot that contains votes for too many candidates for a given office is counted as one illegal vote cast for that office, because it is not possible for the tellers to determine which candidate(s) the voter prefers." There shouldn't be any confusion for the teller to determine the candidate here, but does that then mean, the teller can simply subtract the one vote and leave one vote or is the entire ballot still considered illegal?
  5. Ahh, rereading a few times, I see where it is in the OP motion. The emphasis with "my motion" is mine.
  6. @Atul KapurI'm getting the impression the OP is the secretary as they mention "record" several times in the post, "on the record", "for the record", "for record",... Here again, I can surely be mistaken as to their position and they are not the secretary, but could be the mover of the motion itself.
  7. Their first sentence says the organization (I read membership) has a hard time stating the motions. It goes on in the next to say the president will state (phrase) the motions how they should be stated, and the secretary follows up with "so moved" so that the motion will be correct in the minutes. What is missing here is who is named as the mover, the president, the secretary, or the member whom they are helping phrase the motion. Not that I can't be mistaken, but as it is now, it seems clear to me the secretary is using the term "so moved" simply to "so note" they have the motion correct in the minutes. I do agree with you @Gary Novosielskithe intent of "so moved" but that isn't how they are using it.
  8. It appears to me as if the secretary is saying "so moved" to indicate they have the motion correctly stated in the minutes. If this is the purpose/reason for "so moved" I suggest something such as, "so noted" (or something as generic) if the secretary wants to verbally indicate to the president and the membership they have the motion correctly stated for the minutes.
  9. Is Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR) your parliamentary authority? Do your bylaws permit the Board of Directors to make these types of decisions? Who elects the Board of Directors? If the members elect the Board of Directors, I would say the Board of Directors is subordinate to the membership and the membership can decide which way to go - if there are no other provisions (bylaws, state, county, municipal,... authorities) which would override the membership from doing so. You say there hasn't been any communication made available regarding liability. Perhaps this could be the starting point - find out if this indeed is a real concern and something which needs to be addressed.
  10. In addition to what has already been mentioned, the secretary will ... "In the absence of the president and vice-president, to call the meeting to order and preside until the immediate election of a chairman pro tem." RONR (12th ed.) 47:33 (11) Should there be co-secretaries, which would be called upon?
  11. So, in your example, the Finance Committee and the Awards Committee would not overlap and each raise funds for the planned awards. They would leave this, fundraising, up to the fundraising committee, correct?
  12. Thank you, @Josh Martinfor your valued input. It's much appreciated!
  13. Thank you, @Rob Elsman! The process going forward, as you've outlined it, makes sense to me and I appreciate the feedback from you and @Josh Martin.
  14. The threshold, I don't believe, is in question. The subsequent Point of Order and those implications, is what I am attempting to understand.
  15. Thank you, @Rob Elsman! I can appreciate your point on the Point of Order and one fell swoop! How would/can something like this be rectified? We have the rule/rules which describe what can/can't be allowed, but specifically, in this instance, can happen where those who will do the ballot voting, are null and void of said membership? Or, are they not null and void until a Point of Order is made against them, so they are able to vote by ballot or otherwise, until their turn comes up to be null and void and then voted on by ballot? A conundrum for me at the moment.
  16. Thank you, @Josh Martin! I much appreciate your insight! I'm getting there, understanding how this all plays out, with these exceptions, which hopefully you (and/or anyone) can also help with. So, am I to understand, in each instance, where the identical breach has taken place, needs to be addressed (a point of order, ruling, ballot vote) individually? I would like to think there was a way to address these breaches in one fell swoop, so-to-speak - but how, is the question? In this instance, it will be quite the challenge, to say the least. Who would vote by ballot, as it seems everyone in the past several years was admitted in the same way and if their admittance is now null and void, well, who gets the ballot to vote? As with the reading of minutes, which are three months back, you start with the oldest and work your way to the newest (in August you read May, then June, then July.) Do we then do the same with the oldest member - letting members who it hasn't been determined yet, if they are, indeed members, vote by ballot? And, the same can be said if the voting went by the newest member first, as it hasn't been determined yet, if the oldest members are indeed, members. Also, if the bylaws state there must be a ballot vote, the result should not matter. Imagine if there was a group of people who banned together to blackball a specific person and were watching to see that all who were lined up (voice voted) to do so, did. Regardless of the imagery, it doesn't seem right, to not redo (vote by ballot) all persons who were or were not admitted.
  17. Thanks, @Josh MartinI understand and I don't, to this point: Wouldn't all the members voted in, or out for that matter, over the past several years, need to be addressed/re-addressed, as they too, were not voted in, or out, by ballot?
  18. Bolded and blue text is from me. RONR (12th ed. 2:25): 2:25 In some organizations, a particular practice may sometimes come to be followed as a matter of established custom so that it is treated practically as if it were prescribed by a rule. If there is no contrary provision in the parliamentary authority or written rules of the organization, such an established custom is adhered to unless the assembly, by a majority vote, agrees in a particular instance to do otherwise. However, if a customary practice is or becomes in conflict with the parliamentary authority or any written rule, and a Point of Order citing the conflict is raised at any time, the custom falls to the ground, and the conflicting provision in the parliamentary authority or written rule must thereafter be complied with. If it is then desired to follow the former practice, a special rule of order (or, in appropriate circumstances, a standing rule or a bylaw provision) can be added or amended to incorporate it. This explains how "customs" are dealt with, especially when the custom itself is in conflict with any written rule. I question though, the words in blue, specifically "thereafter". How does this play out then?
  19. Additionally, even if a member was not present for the meeting for the minutes being approved, they may also make corrections to those minutes. RONR (12th ed.) 41:11
  20. Thank you, Mr. Honemann and everyone who has offered their thoughts; they are much appreciated!
  21. Yes, this is a convention of delegates. Yes, the xxx represents the name of the national organization. Yes, the xxx also represents various hierarchical groups of members, who make up the national organization. Group 1, everyone is a delegate. Groups 2 and 3, these members become delegates for the biennial national convention, via a vote, from their respective groups. No, the xxx does not contain any identifiable info beyond the name of the organization or the hierarchical group name. In another previous Article and Section it states: The voting body for the national conventions shall be the xxx (various hierarchical groups) and delegates from each xxx (various hierarchical groups) who are in attendance at the convention. Thank you all for your help; it is much appreciated!
  22. No, xxx was the removed identifiable content and was replaced with what it means generically, (membership).
  23. Thank you for weighing in, Mr. Honemann, Mr. Kapur, Mr. Mervosh, and Mr. Elsman. My apologies, I was away and did not have access to the bylaws. Yes, it is a convention of delegates. The language is as follows: The bylaws may be amended at any biennial national convention by a two-third vote of the xxx (membership) present, provided written notice has been submitted to the xxx (membership) three months prior to convention.
×
×
  • Create New...