Atul Kapur

I don't necessarily see one here, either. I said "If the policy conflicts...", which is something for the organization to determine.

As your President is apparently unaware that a majority is required to elect someone to an office, they may also be unaware that this point of order can be raised at any time because it is a continuing breach of the bylaws. I would, however, suggest that you raise it as soon as possible so as to resolve the issue. So the answer is: Yes, you can raise it at a meeting a month after the incomplete election.

This is still not a majority vote, but the relevant number is a majority of the votes cast (20) rather than of the voters present (21), assuming your bylaws don't say otherwise. Yes, in this case it's academic because a majority is 11 in both cases, but if you have fewer votes cast, it becomes important.

Bylaws are superior to any policy. If the policy conflicts with the Bylaws, the part that conflicts is null and void. If the old policy was not completely replaced by a new one, it would be best to formally amend it to resolve the conflict.

Unless your bylaws say otherwise, no one is elected except by a majority. So your election is not complete, despite the "certification" and a point of order can be raised that the election needs to be completed. This is not really a recall, as the person wasn't actually elected. By the way, I assume that the leading candidate received 10 votes out of a total of 21 votes cast, rather than just 21 voters present.

It sounds like the by laws are silent on this topic. In that case the motion does not conflict with the bylaws, so it would be in order from that standpoint. The next question to be asked is whether the bylaws have anything in the same class of restrictions or requirements listed in the treasurer's duties. If there is anything of the same class that is listed in the bylaws, that list is considered to be complete and exhaustive, and to add something to that list requires formal amendment of the bylaws. If there is nothing of the same class in the bylaws, then the motion is in order from this standpoint as well

In the same meeting? Only by use of the motion to Reconsider, which must be moved by someone on the prevailing side - in this case, someone who voted against the motion to remove the officer.

We are, of course, operating without the exact wording of the bylaws. However, we are told that "the elections are tonight", which sounds like the polls will be open tonight. While it is the assembly that will interpret its own bylaws, I would say that the absentee ballots should not be invalidated due to this procedural mis-step. (they are beyond what RONR says about closing and re-opening of polls because they have introduced absentee ballots). The bigger issue for me would be the question that Guest J. Gou raises: If there is a real question about whether the absentee ballots were completed and casted by eligible voters, that could lead to a valid challenge to the election, depending on whether they have the potential to affect the elections. Again, these concerns should have been addressed by the Bylaws or Rules of Order.

No. The determining factor is how many people cast at least one vote (See the RONR quote from Josh Martin above). So it doesn't matter if the 100 voters each only vote for one person ( = 100 votes) then it still takes 51 votes to elect. If one of them casts a completely blank ballot, then you only have 99 voters and in that case it takes 50 votes to elect.

And, since this is a board of only 11 members, one further clarification may be useful. Since no notice was given you need either a) a 2/3 vote of those present and voting, OR b) a majority of the entire membership, which in this case would be 6 affirmative votes. In this case if the vote is 6-5 the motion to rescind would be adopted, even though it is not a 2/3 vote. I have seen organizations get confused in this situation.

I think it would be better to say that 100 votes were cast, rather than 1100. 100 is, after all, the basis on which you are determining that a majority of votes is 51.

I will assume that Motion One was properly made and seconded and stated by the chair, which are the steps required before the group can consider it. It sounds like the maker of Motion Two had a different proposal on the same subject matter. That person could have moved Motion Two as a substitute for Motion One. Or that person could have said, in the debate on Motion One, "If you defeat this motion then I will move Motion Two." Or that person could have asked the maker of Motion One to try to withdraw it so that this person could move Motion Two. There are more ways that it could have been handled (I haven't even mentioned a simple amendment to change the particulars that this person did not like) but these examples give you an idea of how Motion Two could replace Motion One. The point being that Motion One cannot simply be ignored once it has been stated by the chair and is before the assembly for consideration.

Well, any number > 1/3 to stay. Guest kerri, the idea that a two-step process of leaving the denomination (re-writing the bylaws and then changing the denomination) means that you could be in limbo is wrong. The only purpose of step one (change the bylaws) seems to be to allow for step two. But you have not actually changed denominations until after Step 2 is adopted with a 2/3 vote. Unless and until Step 2 passes, you are with your current denomination and therefore not in limbo. It is likely that you could do this all in one step, which would make it clear that you only need a two-thirds vote to change denominations, not to stay the same. A parliamentarian would need to look at your current bylaws to be able to advise if and how you could do it in one step.

Guess Kathryn, one potential solution is to in this case actually have someone move a motion to approve the minutes. As the others have said, it is not required to have a motion but it is not improper. This motion should be properly moved, seconded, and stated by the chair. It requires a majority vote. I do not know why your group presumes that unanimous consent is required to approve one person can block the approval of the minutes.

It would be good to see the exact wording of the bylaws. I am hoping that it specifies who gets to set the annual dues. Failing that, you can make a reasonable argument that by approving the budget the organisation, at a general meeting, has also set the dues for the year. I believe a majority vote is adequate for this purpose.

Except that defeating a motion supporting pink hats is not the same as going on record as opposing them.

They are dealt with in the order that they were made special orders. The one that was first made a special order for this meeting is dealt with first. The one that was second made a special order is dealt with second. And so on, etc. Go back and look at the motions that created these special orders and what order they were adopted.

It's worth a lot: "The interpretation should be in accordance with the intention of the society at the time the bylaw was adopted, as far as this can be determined." (p. 589, ll. 31-33 ). As there appears to be an ambiguity, this principle of interpretation is important when the organization decides what the bylaw means. Not being a member, it doesn't matter that I tend to disagree with Mr. Katz's opinion because of exactly his sentence quoted above.

Based on the extra information, it seems to me that the proposal, as amended, is what was referred. The committee should start with that. This interpretation doesn't follow the strict RONR meaning of the motion To Withdraw, but I'm taking that liberty because this group isn't following RONR exactly, anyway. As to the future, I support Dr. Stackpole's recommendations which will, by following RONR, simplify your processes and likely shorten your meetings. I would just add that (A) the way to combine steps 1 & 2 is to have the written proposals in the form of a motion to do what is proposed, and (B) you don't need to withdraw the proposal (as amended) to refer the matter to a committee. Just refer the motion that is under consideration to the committee. And voila, a 5-step process is now just 3.

What happened doesn't follow the RONR procedure, so it's hard to answer your question. Your use of the term "motion to approve" is confusing as you seem to be using it to mean two different things. After step 3, the subject under consideration is the amended motion. So step 4 would have been the withdrawal of that amended motion (or, as you put it, the "motion to approve") because it is the only motion under consideration at this point. So, after Step 4, there would be nothing under consideration. So it's not at all clear what was referred to the committee in step 5.

Undebateable motion so undebateable amendments (thankfully, it would seem)

It is explicitly written that, before it is stated by the chair, others may make suggestions about the motion. The mover is free to accept or reject those suggestions. Now 5 minutes seems like a long time to be doing that, but I still wouldn't go to the extreme reaction Mr. Katz suggests. Borax, while I'm writing, a couple of points: your Board was correct to require you to make a motion. The default is that it applies to the vote that is pending. Guest Zev and Mr. Brown gave the other standard answers that you will find in RONR. And, if you're still up to it, the next step is to know that your group seems to be using the motion To Table incorrectly and correct that. ☺️

Another option I have seen is to have a rule of order that says, if there is a tie for the lowest vote-getter and there is only one other candidate (ie: the one who got 3 votes in this situation), that you do a run-off between the two tied nominees. Be very clear that people are voting on which one STAYS on the ballot. Then the winner of that runoff goes on a ballot with the top vote-getter.

Holding the vote by another method, for example, by ballot.

Yes, that's correct for Guest Zev's scenario. I was going back to the question in the original post, whether Committee B could make a recommendation in a report, and GWCtoD's post where he first mentioned the term "prohibited recommendation."