Byron Baxter

The bylaws provide for electronic meetings and state that an anonymous vote will be deemed a ballot vote. Special rules of order provide that the assembly may participate fully or partially by video conference or telephone connection. Some members connecting by telephone do not have access to the anonymous voting feature of the video conference and want to waive their right to a secret ballot vote and cast their vote by voice. They claim the right to waive a secret ballot is established in the section of reconsideration of a ballot vote where the right is waived to establish their vote was on the prevailing side. Is the right to waive the secrecy of a ballot vote for reconsideration applicable in this situation?

Strongly agree with the cited Federal Plain Language Guidelines. Those guidelines contain a link to a past article in the Journal of the American Bar Association which expresses opposition to using shall from a legal standpoint. Both make the case against the use of shall based on preferred language being concise and unambiguous.

The city clerk has offered a legal opinion. This is a public body and before assuming RONR is the default governing document, have all possible superior governing documents such as the state's revised code been researched? It also seems unusual that the city clerk's personal legal opinion would have any force. Was the issue referred to legal council and the clerk stating their opinion? While appointments and elections may produce the same end results, the responsible bodies for appointments and elections are different in a public body. In the county where I reside, there is a cottage industry to seek out public bodies and "sue and settle" based on the state's open meetings laws. County commissioners, township trustees, fiscal officers, and treasurers always know what $ amount to settle for rather than continue legal defenses based on merit.

30:7 and 37:30 seem to clear this up. 39:3 seems open to interpretation. Thank you both.

The chair was uncertain of a voice vote and it was moved and adopted to have a counted vote. The vote was counted and the main motion was adopted. Later in the meeting a member moved to reconsider the vote on taking the counted vote. The main motion was not included in the motion to reconsider. The chair knows that incidental motions may be reconsidered, but states that because a vote cannot be retaken by the same method, the motion to reconsider is out of order. We have researched 6:27(5) and 37:24-34, but are still not sure about reconsideration of a counting the vote.

Unless the financial statements include proposed budget expenditures, shouldn't the statements be filed for audit rather than adopted?

Would you please provide the RONR citation? Thanks in advance.

The thought was that unlike most societies, the majority of the entire membership could actually be present to vote at a meeting and that voting block would trump requirements such as previous notice. However, the majority of the entire membership does not offer any solutions to the quorum problem. Never being able to reach a quorum would seem to preclude even dissolution of the society. RONR (12th ed.) 55:6. This seems like the only available option for the remaining members.

What corrective actions can be taken when the voting threshold is a "Majority of the entire membership"?

A member who did not vote on the prevailing side moved to suspend the rules interfering with reconsideration and reconsider the adopted motion. We have a divided opinion as to whether the presiding officer must put the question on reconsideration to a separate vote or consider both motions as combined RONR (11th ed.) p. 262 ll. 8-17. One of the debated points was what effect if any the two-thirds vote for suspending the rules has on the majority vote needed for reconsideration. Can the presiding officer process the motions of suspend the rules and reconsideration together, and if adopted state the question is on the previously adopted motion?

In the overall importance of the society's business, this does not rise to a pressing and serious issue. However, several board members disagree with that opinion. This does serve as a reminder to the current board and members that ambiguous language must be avoided at all costs to prevent future unnecessary debate.

This topic is of great interest to a society I am in. A category of membership is "Household" and the debate is does that mean the household gets one vote or do the spouse or partner also get to vote? Spouses and partners are very active in the society and they consider their right to vote a right of membership. The board of directors is divided. Can you clear this up?

Do the bylaws prohibit write in candidates?

I agree with the reference from p. 457 and make note of the words "usually provide." If it is not provided, then p.457 ll. 26-28 provide: Unless such provision is made, the first vice-president would preside or complete the president's term. I believe the first vice-president provides a more orderly process. If the president's position is filled by the president-elect, the president-elect vacancy must be filled by an election. A presidential vacancy would most likely be sudden or unexpected. The organization could then be forced into a hasty decision to fill the office of president-elect. Organizations can decide which procedure they prefer. My choice is only personal preference.

Perhaps your organization would be better served if there was an office of Vice-President. Under your circumstances the VP would serve the remaining term of the president while the President-Elect would remain in that position until becoming president at the end of the term.