Atul Kapur

Then, as I said, I would consider the day of taking office as Day 0 and the day after that as Day 1.

Or avoid the overthinking altogether and get it done by Day 19 so that this question doesn't come up. 😉

If I can reframe your question: Does the day of the meeting where the motion is adopted count as Day 0 or Day 1?

The answer, to me at least, becomes obvious if you take an extreme example: If a meeting on Monday adopted a motion ordering an action to be done "within one day" then the deadline is Tuesday. The meeting day is Day 0 and the next day is Day 1, the deadline.

Another way to consider it is that the motion implicitly includes the words "from today." So, in the example above, it would be ordering the action to be done "within one day (from today)"

If a meeting on May 1st adopted a motion ordering something to be done "within 30 days (from today)" then it needs to be done on or before May 31st.

Easier than all that would be to word the motion with a specific date as the deadline, rather than a number of days ahead.

On 5/2/2024 at 2:37 AM, Sophie Anne said:

What are our options? Ignore this "committee?"

I recommend against ignoring it. It creates confusion and the committee may do something, at which point it will be more difficult to challenge its validity because that will be conflated with its actions/recommendations. Worse, it may appear to set a precedent and more committees will be 'created' in this manner.

Do your own rules or bylaws require a ballot vote? It will be easiest if you provide an exact quote.

RONR (12th ed.) says 

"46:35 If the bylaws require the election of officers to be by ballot and there is only one nominee for an office, the ballot must nevertheless be taken for that office unless the bylaws provide for an exception in such a case. In the absence of the latter provision, members still have the right, on the ballot, to cast 'write-in votes' for other eligible persons."

and

"46:40 If only one person is nominated and the bylaws do not require that a ballot vote be taken, the chair, after ensuring that, in fact, no members present wish to make further nominations, 
simply declares that the nominee is elected, thus effecting the 
election by unanimous consent or 'acclamation.'”

Nothing in RONR prohibits this. Some organizations have their own rules that make committee approval a requirement for a motion to be proposed, so you should check your own organization's rules.

Depends. What are they proposing to ratify?

• The original motion you quoted "Implement[ed] the ‘Church Building Expansion Project’" so that is done.
• The building team apparently approved a design - I suppose that could be ratified if it was beyond their authority.
• The funding appears to have changed: dropping bonds and switching to member loans for the outstanding amount. That would be the subject of a motion to ASPA.

Without seeing the details that were provided to the meeting where the original ‘Church Building Expansion Project’ was approved, its difficult to say whether this has deviated so far as to be a new and different project, but I doubt it and that is the assumption behind a motion to ratify the whole thing.

My concerns about just doing a motion to ratify the entire project are that it doesnt clarify the funding situation and it assumes that the project is, indeed, new and different. And what would you do if the motion to ratify fails?

On 5/2/2024 at 6:00 AM, Guest Sally said:

There is a claim that is driving this that the "current" building project should be considered a "fresh project",

You may be better off by dealing with this claim head-on, rather than trying to find a procedural way that assumes this claim is true - because that path creates problems if the claim is not true.

On 5/1/2024 at 2:37 AM, Guest Cally88 said:

Where can I find the information on the split meeting rules

You'll have to make your own. I am familiar with some unions that have split meetings (which is where I got the term) and have also seen them in electoral districts that are geographically huge and hold split meetings in the various towns in the district.

There are several issues that, as I said, will not be answered by RONR for a split meeting. You may want to consult a professional parliamentarian who is familiar with split meetings and can advise on issues and potential solutions.

Some of your union's other locals may also have dealt with this issue and they may be able to advise.

While some may say that "We've been doing fine until now with common sense," I recommend that you do formally write and adopt rules to avoid future arguments as to what is fair and appropriate.

On 4/30/2024 at 4:24 PM, Guest Cally88 said:

we hold a morning session and an evening session.  The vote that takes place is combined to make quorum.

Are you saying that members attend either the morning or evening session, but not both (or some may attend both but most o not), that both sessions vote on the same motions, and that the votes from the two sessions are combined? This has been called a "split meeting" and if that is the case, you will find that many parts of RONR are not applicable.

Please elaborate.

On 4/29/2024 at 7:52 PM, Josh Martin said:

This is correct.

Technically, perhaps, but it either removes the organization's flexibility as provided by the method in 46:31(2) or wastes time by not following the procedure in 46:31(1). So I see no benefit whatsoever.

Can someone who is unsuccessful in the first election be nominated for the second election? 

Can the winner of the first election be elected to the second office, as well? If so, would their election to Office1 affect how voters wish to vote on Office2?

These are some of the reasons why a group may want to hold their elections separately, as your group does.

If not, why bother to do it this way? Follow 46:31(1) and save yourselves the time.

Presumably, the rationale for doing two separate ballots is for the members to be aware of the results of the first election before making nominations and voting for the second office. That rationale is defeated if you don't wait for the results of the first election (even if that requires more than one ballot). 

So, my answer is that you

On 4/29/2024 at 7:29 PM, Wright Stuff said:

have to wait for the votes of the first election to be counted and reported before proceeding with the second election?

See RONR (12th ed.) 46:31 for more information on both.

If, on the other hand, you are referring to a special meeting of the membership, then the members of the board, assuming that they are also members of the association, have the same rights as any other member of the association.

That is, a board member does not gain or lose any of their membership rights at a membership meeting because they are also members of the board.

Mr. Novosielski's note about the limits of what can be considered at a special meeting,

On 4/29/2024 at 3:56 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

only business that was described in the call of the meeting

also applies for special meetings of the membership.

On 4/23/2024 at 1:43 AM, Oezuwn said:

Does the President, who’s presiding, refrain from voting unless there’s a tie from the owners/members?

Not quite. The president only votes if their vote would change the outcome. So if it's a tie (which is not a majority so would mean the motion is defeated), the chair could vote in favour to make the motion pass.

Alternatively, if there is one more vote in favour than opposed, the chair can vote No to create a tie and defeat the motion.

On 4/28/2024 at 7:47 PM, Wright Stuff said:

she was not elected to the Executive Committee at a convention in an odd-numbered year

Yes, she was: The year she was elected president.

You seem to be assuming that she has to be elected as IPP in an odd-year convention. It's not a position one is elected to, it's a position one ascends to. But that does not invalidate the fact that she was elected at an odd-year convention to the office of president.

I don't believe that you have shared the exact wording of the State bylaws that you say create this confusion ( in fact, you describe it as am opinion); they may specifically say different and it may help clarify the situation if you do share the exact language you received. 

Quote

If an organization has adopted RONR, doesn't it automatically have an established order of business (unless their bylaws say otherwise)?

Well, that's not the only condition that needs to be met.

"41:6 In organizations that have adopted this book as parliamentary authority and that have not adopted a special order of business, this series of headings is the prescribed order of business for regular meetings, unless the periods intervening between consecutive regular meetings are usually more than a quarterly time interval (see 9:7)."

On 4/27/2024 at 6:03 PM, Drake Savory said:

I was going along with Mr. Kapur as to what RONR has to say about it.

Yes, I just said "or applicable law" without elaborating (didn't have full time to do so at that moment). Messrs. Merritt and Brown took care of that for me.

RONR has no requirements for an agenda at all, and even fewer regarding the rules for its public posting and amendment prior to it being moved at the meeting.

You will need to look for any such rules in your own governing documents or applicable law. 

On 4/25/2024 at 3:48 AM, Weldon Merritt said:

There actually is no requirement that the dues cycle correspond with the fiscal year.

Thanks for the correction, Weldon. Edited my response to add this point 

On 4/24/2024 at 10:53 PM, Guest Bylaws said:

Our fiscal year went from June 1-May 31. It was voted and approved to change to Jan 1- December 31. However we forgot to change the due date for the dues. We have a member contending ...

This sounds like this change was made without  being well thought out, or, at least, not well explained.

If your dues were on a June-May basis and you've now changed to a January-December year (and your dues cycle is required to align with your fiscal year), then you either have members paying twice for a 5-month period or a gap of 7 months, unless you adjusted your dues for the transition (e.g., put in a pro-rated dues for the "stub" period). Did you do any of his when the bylaws change was adopted?

Assuming Guest Bylaws and Guest Bill are the same person, Why didn't you tell us  that the first time? This is a much different question and almost completely unrelated to the first.

This now is a question about bylaws interpretation. It requires you to share the exact wording of the relevant portions of your bylaws, including the prior and current language regarding the fiscal year, the language about the deadline for dues payment, and the language that says

On 4/24/2024 at 10:53 PM, Guest Bylaws said:

Our bylaws state they need to be paid members to speak at a meeting

because this is a difference from RONR.

And please also share any other "wrinkles" when you do so.

By default, it is effective from the moment it is adopted.

The meeting could adopt a proviso setting a later time when it becomes effective.

On 4/24/2024 at 4:25 PM, Guest LJames said:

There has been an understanding in our student group that “simple majority” is half plus one of whatever the number of voting members present is needed to pass,

So there's two issues here.

1) as mentioned, majority means "more than half." So a majority of 4 or 5 is 3. But...

2) unless your rules specifically say otherwise, it's a majority of votes cast, rather than the number present. So if one if the four abstain, then a majority of the three votes cast is 2.

Sometimes the language in an organization's bylaws sets things differently than the usual, which is why I asked earlier about the exact language in your bylaws.

On 4/24/2024 at 5:16 PM, Wright Stuff said:

ex officio means by virtue of their position

Correct

On 4/24/2024 at 5:16 PM, Wright Stuff said:

some elected officials in county government are ex officio members of the Executive Committee. They never sit for an election at the county convention, and they (were previously) automatically members of the Executive Committee

They are not the type of positions I was thinking of. If you had elected, at the odd annual convention, delegates to the state executive committee for example, then they could be ex-officio members of the county committee.

On 4/24/2024 at 5:16 PM, Wright Stuff said:

They never sit for an election at the county convention, and they (were previously) automatically members of the Executive Committee. They now must be elected at either the convention or an Executive Committee meeting. Since they have to elected at one or the other, are they still ex officio?

No, it sounds like the people elected to government office are no longer ex officio members of the County Executive; they are no longer automatically members of the Executive by virtue of their government position.

On 4/24/2024 at 2:58 AM, Josh Martin said:

There's no need for a motion to "keep doing what we're already doing

Except that it is not clear that what they are already doing is what they approved doing with the original motion.

Assuming your officer terms are two years (as they are only elected in the odd-numbered years), one way to consider it is that you are actually electing an individual to a four-year term: two years as president and two as IPP.

It's similar to the situation if you elect a president-elect. That person is actually being elected to a double-length term, serving the first half as prez-elect and the second half as president.

On 4/24/2024 at 5:41 AM, Wright Stuff said:

The opinion from the state actually wiped out all ex officio positions in the county bylaws

I'm not certain that they did. Any positions that are elected at the odd-numbered annual conventions could still be on the board ex officio, couldnt they?

On 4/23/2024 at 5:07 PM, Guest LJames said:

We define simple majority as half plus 1.

Does the constitution actually say that in those exact words?