Atul Kapur

I'm not convinced that those who are silent are being counted as voting Yes. Assuming that the chair is calling for the negative vote, it is likely that those indicating Yes are more than those indicating No. That is all that is required and makes no assumption about those who are silent. I have seen this occur on several municipal councils and their subsidiary boards/committees.

Richard, if someone says "present" or "abstain" wouldn't they all be recorded the same way "in a third column, to the far right or left"? Along with anyone who says, for example, "I decline to vote"? The point being that, whatever the actual words the person uses, if the intent is clearly to abstain then they get recorded in the third column. And that there are only three columns: 1) Yes / In Favour / Support / etc 2) No / Opposed / etc 3) Present / Abstain / etc I don't think anything you quoted from RONR supports the idea that there are other variations that should be recorded differently. I don't think that is what you are saying, either, but I am hearing that from other posts.

So you're saying that "affirmative", "in favour", and "110% in favour" should all be recorded separately? Not to mention, for international meetings, "oui", "ja", and "hai"? I've seen many quirky ways of expressing abstention and disagree that each individual response should be recorded just as it was said. My concern about this is that it presumes that these "minutes with context" are balanced or objective. I much prefer the option of having the minutes as per RONR along with a newsletter type of article that tells the stories around the meeting. For baseball fans it's analogous to the box score and the newspaper article about a game, which can include colour commentary and post-game interviews.

If she had said "affirmative" or "in favour" instead of yes, then you would have counted it as a yes and marked her as supporting the motion. My point is that the use of a non-standard term does not create a new category of how she voted or, in this case, how she abstained. She either voted Yes, voted No, or Abstained, no matter what specific word she used to indicate that. You apparently have a custom of including more in the minutes than is required or recommended. This member should have followed your current custom to have her opinions recorded in the minutes. What she is trying to do here is to create, all by herself, a brand new custom. I would strongly suggest that you not indulge her. Record her abstention. When the minutes come up for approval, she can try to amend them to include her opinions then. I say that it is an amendment rather than a correction to the minutes because you have followed your customs in the way you drafted them. And, fortunately for him and for you, Dr. Stackpole will not be there to see that happen.

Well, they couldn't attend as observers, but I don't see any reason they could not attend as invitees. Presumably, the board would not be inviting them to just watch the Executive Session proceedings.

Your bylaws say they can attend. They can attend. Unless your bylaws give them any other rights at the executive committee meetings, they have no other rights as they are not members of the body that is meeting. The executive committee can adopt a motion to allow non-members (that is,people who are not members of the executive committee) to speak at the meeting or, by a 2/3 vote, suspend the rules and allow them to participate in debate. Page 263 states that the rules may not be suspended to allow non-members to vote, as this would breach a fundamental principle of parliamentary law.

Depends on the measuring unit: 5 Canadian beers are at least 2/3 of 14 American beers. 😁

This group had no authority to change the board's decision. The "impromptu unscheduled meeting" has no status because: (a) every member must be given notice of a meeting; (b) the bylaws on how to call a special (or emergency) meeting were not followed; and (c) they did not have quorum. Even if they had the necessary 5th member attend and achieved quorum (5 is at least 1/3 2/3 of 14 -- 4 is not), the other reasons render this "meeting" powerless.

If the candidate who they support is still on the ballot, why not allow it?

So, as I understand it, you had discussion ("debate") on the motion, a vote was held, and it was adopted. I agree with Mr. Katz and would also say it appears that the motion has been legitimately adopted; it does not need to be brought up again at another meeting.

I didnt say that a SRO could prohibit write-ins.

The short answer is it is highly unlikely that this authority has been delegated to the officers. Your bylaws should have an article about their Amendment: who can amend them, what the vote requirement is, and what notice is required. If there is nothing in your bylaws about how they are amended, then RONR says "they can be amended by a two-thirds vote if previous notice ... has been given, or they can be amended by the vote of a majority of the entire membership." (Page 581, lines 3-7). That would be at a meeting of the members. Of course, if your bylaws don't have a provision for their own amendment then it is unlikely that they have formally adopted a Parliamentary Authority.

Richard, doesn't the footnote on page 441 say that this could be done by a Special Rule of Order and not only by a provision in the bylaws? I agree that only the bylaws could make other candidates ineligible, but you don't need to have it in the bylaws to allow for a runoff.

The approved minutes are the official record of the meeting. RONR says that a recording does not replace the minutes. If you feel the minutes are inaccurate, you can make a motion to amend them by using the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted.

There is a motion to Lay on the Table, which is meant to lay the main motion aside temporarily. Many organizations mistakenly "Table" a motion as a way to kill it, which is considered a misuse of the motion Lay on the Table (RONR p. 216, lines 3-10). It sounds like this is what your organization is doing. I'm not sure what you mean by "the first option". Was the motion on the floor tabled (= killed) and then a second, related motion was made? This is also improper.

I agree with what you have said above and with your earlier posts. I was taking issue with your statement because I thought you were saying that there was some recourse in the OP's situation.

Under what authority do they have this recourse? Hoping the assembly ratifies their action doesn't fit the definition of recourse.

There was this one from Feb 2017 https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/29579-bylaws/ and it referred to this other discussion https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/29064-motion-to-never-bring-something-up-again/#comment-167646

Thomas, the question I have is: Why would this issue arise with the Sergeant-at-Arms and not with any other member of your board? In other words, if the Vice-President was running to become the President would you be asking the same question?

Agreeing with Mr H, I note the old board no longer exists. Therefore, if you are waiting for the old board to give the new board permission or instructions, you're going to be waiting forever. I am assuming that the committee has a continued existence beyond the change in membership of the board. Mr. Katz's question suggests that he is not willing to make that assumption,

@Tom Coronite said I had the same problem. It seems the settings for this forum only allowed you a member title after reaching a certain number of posts (5000, I recall). Administrator SG changed that so it should work for you, too, now. I recognize that this is an old thread, but wanted you to know.

Guest Mike, your question was answered here, where you asked it previously

Chuck, while I also feel you should buy a copy of the current edition of the book, I don't believe in keeping you in suspense: "The tellers' report is entered in full in the minutes, becoming a part of the official records of the organization. Under no circumstances should this be omitted in an election or in a vote on a critical motion out of a mistake deference to the feelings of unsuccessful candidates were or members of the losing side." RONR 11th ed, p. 418, lines 26-31 The tellers' report indicates the total number of votes cast and the number of votes that each candidate received as well as listing any illegal votes cast.

We are all speculating here because this depends on what the exact wording in your bylaws is about these three readings. However, one wrinkle that may come up if you try to delay the third reading is that it may be necessary that these three readings occur at consecutive meetings. In other words, if you skip a meeting you may have to go back to the beginning and give three readings again. I say this because the three readings seem basically to serve the function of giving previous notice of the motion. If you can interrupt the three readings, then you are effectively defeating the purpose of it being read three times: so that people who may not attend every meeting can know when it will come up for decision.

I also expect that is what Guest Nick meant. But the more time I spend on this forum, the more I realize that not everyone shares my clear, logical, and correct understanding of the world. 😀