LIH

Thank you all for your feedback.

So it turns out, after some research, that he IS eligible to serve the 2 full years of the term. (It turns out he was appointed to a partial term at one point.) But he only WANTS to serve 1 year.

The Nominating Committee has put on the ballot that he will serve 1 year of the 2-year term. That's where I have an issue

It still applies that if he were to resign sometime during his term that the Nominating Committee will appoint his successor to serve out the remainder of that term. 

If you would like to further explore the original question posed (he is ineligible to serve the full term). Here is the pertinent bylaws language:

The Nominating Committee nominates candidates for Board
positions who have been voting members for at least one year at the time of the Annual
Meeting.

The President and Vice President shall be eligible to serve for a maximum of three (3)
consecutive full one-year terms.

The Secretary, Treasurer, and Members-at-Large shall be eligible to serve for a maximum of two
(2) consecutive full two-year terms.

 

Except for the President and Immediate Past President, Board membership shall not exceed
eight (8) consecutive years. These limits are not reduced by the member’s having been appointed to a partial term.

 

If any member of the Board shall die, resign, or otherwise be unable to serve, the Nominating Committee
shall appoint a member to fill the vacancy. The appointment shall be valid for the remainder of the vacated term.

The Committee shall solicit candidates for vacant positions on the Board and
committees named in these Bylaws. Members who desire to serve in positions on the Board or
committees shall notify the Committee for consideration. The Nominating Committee shall
then validate, submit, and publicize the names of all candidates. No member can be a member
of the Board and the Nominating Committee at the same time.

The Nominating Committee has nominated a member for a 2-year term. However, due to term limits, the member can only serve one more year in a board position.

Is this member eligible to appear on the ballot if they cannot, according to the bylaws, fulfill the term? There are 1-year positions he could fill.

He has not served any partial terms.

If that member, once elected, were to resign from the board (say, a forced resignation after 1 year), the Nominating Committee would appoint a successor to fulfill the remainder of the term. We do not have partial-term elections.

Thanks.

Great. Thanks.

If we are currently debating Amendment B, what other motion (or kinds of motions) might be pending?

Scenario:

    Main motion 1

    Amendment A passes

    Amendment B is being debated

    Call the previous motion

 

If I am calling the previous question, can I choose to call just Motion 1 or just Motion 1A or Motion 1AB? Or do I have to include everything pending?

(It seems that even though Amendment A has passed, it is still pending.)

Thanks

 

Bylaws: a two-thirds majority of the total votes cast and also a two thirds majority of the votes cast by those present and eligible to vote. 

I'm seeing it now: the first "total votes cast" would include absentees and proxies who's votes (let's say) favored the original wording of the motion on the agenda.  The second "votes cast by those present and eligible to vote" would be just the persons physically present and voting in favor of the the amended version. An amended motion would have to accomplish both objectives in order to pass.

 

7 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

I don’t know. One could argue that if proxies are authorized by the organization’s rules, proxy holders are “eligible to vote.”

But the stipulation is "those present and eligible to vote." If I have someone's proxy, are they in some sense present?

@jstackpoYou are correct. I did take a liberty in paraphrasing: "at a Church Business Meeting" in #1

21 hours ago, jstackpo said:

If you have paraphrased your bylaws accurately, it appears you have a built-in inconsistency...  To wit:

You first say:  "Our bylaws accommodate absentee ballots"   and then go on to describe two different vote thresholds, both of which speak of votes cast at a church business meeting.    But absentee votes are manifestly NOT cast at a church business meeting, so, unless you have other provisions you haven't mentioned, it seems those absentee votes should not be counted.

Perhaps your paraphrase is the source of the problem.  Can you quote the exact bylaw words, please?

Language from the bylaws

H. Voting members of the Church who do not expect to be present at a Church business meeting may vote in absentia in any election, and on any other voting issue on the Agenda of the meeting in either of two manners:

The two choices are proxy and absentee.

 

Later on under bylaws:

3. The requirements for adoption of the proposed [bylaws] amendment are as follows:

a. If the text of the proposed amendment is unmodified from the text that was placed on the Agenda, then the amendment shall be adopted if it receives a two-thirds majority of the total votes cast (including absentee ballots).

b. If the text of the proposed amendment is modified in any way from the Agenda text by action at the Church business meeting, then the amendment shall be adopted if it receives a two-thirds majority of the total votes cast and also a two thirds majority of the votes cast by those present and eligible to vote.

 

This final item seems to exclude proxies. Correct?

Note that proxies are not counted in the quorum.

 

 

 

I'm glad to see the pros finding this issue a bit tricky, and I appreciate the help.

1. majority of the total votes cast at a Church business meeting - the main intention was to include absentee ballots.

2. majority of the votes cast by those present and eligible to vote at a Church business meeting - a majority of those physically attending the meeting and voting. Does not include absentee or proxies.

A. From my research it seems both 1 and 2 would include abstentions as "votes cast", whereas normally you would exclude them from the total in determining a majority. Is that correct?

B. We usually vote by the raising of placards, and sometimes people don't vote or they may come and go. In the presence of a quorum, do the total "votes cast by those present and eligible to vote" have to equal a quorum?

 

30 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

I would say “2/3 vote” instead of “2/3 majority,” and it would seem to me that the language “of the votes cast at a Church Business Meeting” is redundant. It is already the case that a vote is based on the votes cast (unless your rules provide otherwise) and that action may only be taken at a regular or properly called meeting (or more specifically, at a business meeting, if you also have non-business meetings).

Our bylaws accommodate absentee ballots. The bylaws differentiate

1. majority of the total votes cast at a Church business meeting

2. majority of the votes cast by those present and eligible to vote at a Church business meeting

I wanted to make sure this fund's reallocation could accommodate a ballot vote and any absentee ballots.

Yes, we do have congregational meetings that are more informal and are not "business meetings" with motions on the agenda.

Kindly review proposed motions:

Motion for a Special Rule of Order:

The Congregation has the authority to reallocate or expend the annual total dividend, interest or fair market value of asset growth, if any, of Endowment Fund by a two-thirds majority of the votes cast at a Church Business Meeting.

Motion for a Special Rule of Order:

The Congregation has the authority, in the event of extraordinary circumstances or financial events or catastrophic costs, to reallocate or expend the Endowment Fund (principal and  income), in whole or in part, by a two-thirds majority of the votes cast at a Church Business Meeting.

 

Thanks!

A few years ago our organization voted to establish a series of special funds for specific purposes. They all require a vote of the membership to use those monies for a purpose different from the purpose for which they were designated.

 

At the same time we voted that two of these funds should require a two-thirds majority to withdraw or reallocate funds for any purpose. It was specified in the adopted Standards and Practices that day that an amendment to the bylaws would be required. In the years since, the bylaws have not been amended.

 

Our bylaws state: The latest edition of “Robert’s Rules of Order” shall be used as a guide for the conduct of all Church business meetings, except in those cases where such rules conflict with these Bylaws. And that amending the bylaws requires lots of prior notifications and “two-thirds majority of votes cast.”

 

So, can a motion requiring a two-thirds vote for a specific action of the membership be approved by a simple majority? If the chair wished to enforce the two-thirds requirement, could a special rule be established?

Thanks in advance for your kind assistance.