Atul Kapur

I believe that you need to do another ballot in any case, because the candidate did not receive a majority of 12. Tell the abstainers that they need to participate and the bylaws only allow for affirmative and negative votes.

Thanks for your response, Josh. I must also disagree. As you and @Dan Honemann both quote, 41:59 lists recesses and adjournments as "subjects," so would be considered orders of the day based on 41:40, as you also quote, and 41:58. To me, the fact that 41:56 gives a rank to the various subjects, when the entire section is read in its entirety, doesn't mean that recesses and adjournments are a different category of thing.

That's why I said that would lead to discussions. I believe that will have to be determined by the organization itself whether the powers in the standing rules derive from those in the bylaws or are of the same class. In my opinion, I cannot see how the power to appoint or dismiss a person derives from the duty to liaise with them. But I'm not a member of your organization.

56:68(4) "If the bylaws authorize certain things specifically, other things of the same class are thereby prohibited. There is a presumption that nothing has been placed in the bylaws without some reason for it. There can be no valid reason for authorizing certain things to be done that can clearly be done without the authorization of the bylaws, unless the intent is to specify the things of the same class that may be done, all others being prohibited. Thus, where Article IV, Section 1 of the Sample Bylaws (56:62) lists certain officers, the election of other officers not named, such as a sergeant-at-arms, is prohibited." I've emphasized the term "of the same class," which is going to be part of the discussion, and also is aligned with @J. J.'s point.

Does it not create a special order?

Did you care who moved it, or just the motion as decided and the result?

If there's only one Jane in attendance, their current practice would satisfy that need (similarly, so would Ms. Doe, as long as Jane's sister Jennifer isn't also in attendance). I agree that you want to be able to identify the particular individual, but however you do that, I'm not too fussed how that is done (eg: Jane, Ms. Doe, Owner of Unit 112, etc).

How large is the board? Do your own rules say anything about this?

@J. J. has guided you to the answer General Robert gave. There is nothing in RONR about 3 members. There may be a law that applies to your organization (for example, if you are incorporated) and, if so, you should refer to it.

"This" is an incorrect interpretation of the rules by some people in the OP's organization. My original comments were not particularly edifying. The point that I think I was trying to make was that, even if you don't have fractional voting and are dealing with individuals, that you don't round up any threshold. So if the threshold is more than 8⅔ (two-thirds of 13) then you do not round at all. Any number more than 8⅔, such as 9, meets the threshold. [Note that this threshold, more than 2/3, is unusual. The standard for supermajorities is usually at least the designated fraction]

I believe that if the organization creates a special rule that email is an (or the) way of giving notice, that would supersede this provision of RONR.

I assume that you have created your own rules regarding this method of voting, as RONR would not allow it. Those rules should be detailed enough to allow you to answer the question yourself. If they are not, they should be enhanced. For example, how long are the polls considered to be open in such a vote: Is there a time limit or is it until all six have registered a vote or something else?

No. RONR (12th ed.) 40:9 [emphasis added] I agree with Mr. Katz's answers above.

Another round of balloting was required, yes, but the term "runoff" suggests that you drop Option B and just vote on A or C. This is incorrect. You keep all options on subsequent ballots, unless you have your own rule saying otherwise or the meeting decides, by majority vote, to proceed differently.

Usually, the previous responses would start by asking if your bylaws specifically and explicitly allow absentee voting. If they do not -- and there is no requirement for it in superior rules -- then it is prohibited.

Did the Presidential Directive authorize voting by mail despite the fact that your bylaws do not allow it? Some executive orders did explicitly do that? If not, then I agree with @Joshua Katz that your 2022 actions may not have been valid? In other words, did the action we took because of a Presidential Directive set a precedent for a time when no such directive is in effect? I hope that this way of expressing it makes clear that the answer is No.

The default would be, as @Joshua Katz says, as soon as possible after the polls are closed. If there is a compelling reason to delay - fir example, if the organization wants the count to be done at a meeting with members observing - then that may occur. However, the question that then needs to be resolved is how to ensure the security of the ballot boxes between the time the polls close and the votes are counted. The reason to delay the count should be very compelling to override the concerns (or even suspicions) that will almost inevitably arise due to the delay.

It may be useful to specify Elected Officers (P, VP1, VP2) and Appointed Officers (ExecSec, Treasurer, RecSec). Then clarify that the term limits in section 3 only apply to Elected Officers (I believe terms are useful for the Appointed Officers, but if you remove the limits then you can keep re-appointing the same people).

This is also known as "volunteering" and is allowed. It may look better to some if the person arranges for a friend to nominate them, but there is nothing wrong with nominating oneself. Breathing during meetings is "not specifically allowed in Robert's" so I wish that member good health.

Hi Dwayne, I am in Ontario and familiar with ONCA and it's provisions. Regarding removal of directors, it defers in some details to to your bylaws and not in others. To give you precise answers regarding procedure would require a review of your bylaws, including the provisions regarding removal of directors. Generally, be prepared at the meeting with your points / reasons / arguments. Depending on the timelines for the meeting and for proxies, there may be other actions that you can take.

Well, since the OP has asked the question, it apparently isn't clear enough. If the intent is that the answer should be 'No,' I suggest amending the wording to say something like: The Association may alter, amend or repeal the By Laws by a two thirds vote. If the intent is that the answer should be 'Yes,' I suggest amending the wording to say something like: By Laws may be altered, amended or repealed by the affirmative vote of two thirds of the entire membership of the Association.

Nothing in RONR requires the board to take any action in response to a letter from members of the organization. The members themselves may rescind the decision if it is not too late, but this would occur , at a membership meeting: "Except in matters placed by the bylaws exclusively under the control of the board, the society’s assembly can give the board instructions which it must carry out, and can rescind or amend any action of the board if it is not too late (see 35)." RONR (12th ed.) 49:7

That's a good question to ask the mover of the amendment and, then, to amend the amendment so that it unambiguously says what the assembly intends it to say. Good thing you've caught this now, before the amendment is adopted.

The wording seems to suggest that it was made as a request to, and denied by, the chair. The proper procedure is that a motion to Reconsider is made and seconded and, unless it is out of order for some reason, is considered by the assembly and decided by a vote.

On p. xlvii of the Introduction of the current, 12th, edition, the authors quote Henry M. Robert from Parliamentary Law: “The great lesson for democracies to learn is for the majority to give to the minority a full, free opportunity to present their side of the case, and then for the minority, having failed to win a majority to their views, gracefully to submit and to recognize the action as that of the entire organization, and cheerfully to assist in carrying it out, until they can secure its repeal."