Byron Baxter

A main motion was made during New Business. It was neither controversial or contentious. After debate a member moved for a ballot vote. The assembly groaned with displeasure and the member held up his cell phone declaring that he can demand a ballot vote. "It says so right here on wikipedia!" The presiding officer ruled the motion dilatory and not in order. Did the presiding officer have the authority to rule the motion not in order or should the motion have been decided by majority vote of the assembly?

It has been customary for the assembly to suspend the rules to expedite elections with multiple (6+) candidates. These elections are by ballot vote. "A candidate for any office shall be elected upon receiving a majority vote of those present and voting-a quorum being present. The number of ballots permitted shall be limited to one more than the number of candidates. With each round of voting, the candidate with the fewest number of votes will be dropped from subsequent ballots. In the event of a tie for the least number of votes, all of the candidates in that tied last position will be dropped from subsequent ballots, as long as two candidates remain. In the event of a tie for the least number of votes in which dropping all tied candidates would leave fewer than two candidates, that round of balloting would be repeated and none of the candidates would be dropped. This repeated ballot would not reduce the number of permitted ballots. When only two candidates remain, if no majority has been reached,each candidate-or his representative-may speak to the committee for three minutes before the next vote occurs." I am sure you can identify many flaws in this bylaw. Though improbable, it is possible that two candidates tie on the last ballot. The good news is that there is a recently appointed bylaw review committee working on amending the bylaws. Per the suggestion of Mr. Kapur, the opportunity to revise the bylaws and clarify the intent of organization is at hand. All of the suggestions and specific language posted will be forwarded to the review committee. Thank you all for your input. The bylaws are silent on write in candidates. The organization considers write in candidates a a right of membership under the parliamentary authority.

This quote clarifies the problem. The bylaws do not state that the dropped candidate becomes ineligible. If the intent of the assembly is that the dropped candidates become ineligible, can this be accomplished by suspending the rules before voting and moving that they become ineligible when dropped from the subsequent ballot or must this be addressed as an amendment to the bylaws?

RONR is the adopted authority. The bylaws state the following regarding elections: "In the event that a majority is not achieved, the candidate receiving the lowest vote total will be dropped from the subsequent ballot." Write in candidates are provided for on the first ballot. Our bylaws are silent on write in candidates on subsequent ballots. If a candidate received the lowest vote total and was dropped from the subsequent ballot, but received write in votes, are those legal votes, illegal votes, or non votes?

Section 7. State Organizing Convention E. In the event that three or more candidates are nominated for the same single seat office, the convention may use multiple ballots or preference voting to choose officers. The State Party Central Committee shall certify the method of election. at least 6 months prior to the convention. The second sentence seems to be a conforming sentence to the first sentence. Is the certification of method contingent on three or more candidates having been nominated? The nomination process seems ambiguous. When does the nomination process begin and end in relation to the 6 months prior requirement for the State Central Committee's certification of the method?

I have seen inserted text underlined, italicized, or in bold print. When a sentence has been struck and new text is inserted, is there a standard rule regarding differentiating the new text from the struck text?

Posted 18 hours ago It is clear on page 508 that, once the person has been elected to membership, and been informed, it is not possible to rescind that election. It does work the same way with election to office. Page 508 of my edition deals with reports. Should I be referencing another edition for membership?

I apologize and in the future will start a new thread. Thanks to all for the guidance.

The prior meeting was a regular monthly meeting and complied with all requirements. This was a bylaw amendment. The verbal notice did include the precise wording of the proposed amendment. This is on the order of business for the next meeting. If no point of order is raised, and the motion is adopted, what possible difficulties could arise?

A quorum was present, but notice was given verbally at the meeting prior to the motion being adopted. The challenge centers around written notice not being sent with the call of the meeting.

Would a vote to ratify an adopted motion at the previous meeting be in order?

Thanks for the clarifications.

Our bylaws are being amended. The main purpose of the proposed amendments is to allow the organization to have flexibility in communication. Current bylaws require all notice and ballots for regional elections to be delivered by U.S. mail. The proposed amendments would allow the use of current and future technology to better facilitate the process and provide substantial cost savings. There is overwhelming support for the intent of the amendments. Prior to enumerating the proposed methods of delivering notice, it was stated that "all members must receive notice." This was stated to protect the rights of members who request continued notice by U.S. mail. An objection has been raised to the words "must receive." Is there a prefered language that should be substituted?