George Mervosh

On 1/10/2023 at 1:03 PM, Jeancspeck said:

Thank you all for the sage advice.  Can you clarify "only if previous notice has been properly given" - does that mean it should be on the agenda, or something different?

It means that notice of the intent to make the motion is given.  It can either be given in a meeting (let's say in January for the February meeting), or it can be placed in the call of the meeting.

I would not worry about it either way.  If 2 of you are in favor of it, it will get done, since a vote of a majority of the entire board adopts this motion as far as RONR is concerned.

On 1/9/2023 at 3:25 PM, Guest H.Beardsley RFD-Voting said:

When voting, if a voting member chooses to turn in a blank ballet, is that same member allowed to submit a vote if another vote is required for a tie breaking round of voting?

Certainly.  All members present for additional rounds of voting may submit a ballot.  But if the vote was by ballot, how do you know which member(s) turned in a blank one?

I should add that if this vote is for a motion, not an election, no subsequent rounds of voting are necessary as the motion is defeated.

On 1/9/2023 at 2:48 PM, Guest Scott said:

If an appeal of a decision is made, is everything halted until the appeal is answered

Perhaps you can add a set of facts to your question.  Typically an appeal is handled immediately after the chair makes a ruling, so there isn't much of a halt.

On 1/9/2023 at 3:24 AM, Guest Stymied? said:

Are there any limitations on what topics can be discussed at a “Special Meeting” which would prevent them from getting away with this scheme? 

The only limitation as to what can be considered at a special meeting is "The only business that can be transacted at a special meeting is that which has been specified in the call of the meeting. "  RONR (12th ed.), 9:15

On 1/9/2023 at 3:24 AM, Guest Stymied? said:

Is there any RONR requirement that regular business, like budget approvals, must be dealt with at regular meetings?

No.

See RONR (12th ed.), 9:13-16 for the complete rules regarding special meetings.

Since the motion from 2020 has not been acted upon, the 2020 motion may be amended from a motion to dedicate the meeting room to a motion to dedicate the town hall.  See RONR (12th ed.), §35.  Unless your town has its own voting requirements for the adoption such a motion (and if it does, it takes precedence), the voting requirement in RONR is noted in 35:2 7)

On 1/5/2023 at 3:08 PM, Tomm said:

10:57 says that since Ratify is a main motion, therefore it is debatable and opens the entire question to debate. Does that mean that the motion to accept the budget is opened again for debate and vote or only the motion to Ratify?

They would only be voting on the motion to ratify.  But I totally agree that no facts seem to indicate a need to even entertain a motion to ratify.

On 1/5/2023 at 9:05 AM, Guest Matt said:

An organization I am a part of is not following the bylaws properly. How best is that brought up in a regular meeting 

By raising a point of order.  See RONR (12th ed.), §23.

On 1/5/2023 at 9:14 AM, Tomm said:

Because of all the confusion regarding first a "no" vote and the incorrect usage of Reconsider and Rescind.

Is there a specific citation in RONR that states that a vote on a motion, regardless of whether it was done properly or not, is still a valid vote as long as nobody raises a point of order or challenges the vote? 

Try RONR (12th ed.), 23:5.

On 1/2/2023 at 2:12 PM, R4_Chair_Mark said:

If an elected chairman is only a member of a committee by virtue of his/her election to chair by the body, can he/she engage in debate after relinquishing the chair and appointing a pro-tem chair? IOW, once this chairman relinquishes the chair, do they lose their right to debate since they are not a general member of the committee?

In a meeting of a committee, the chairman should never relinquish the chair to begin with.  RONR notes that " In committees, the chairman is usually the most active participant in the discussions and work of the committee. "  RONR (12th ed.), 50:25

As far as ex-officio members of committees are concerned see FAQ#2 here https://robertsrules.com/frequently-asked-questions/#faqs

On 1/2/2023 at 12:29 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

Can write-in votes on ballot elections be prohibited in the bylaws?  Please note I understand why this may not be a good idea, so I am not asking that, but I am wondering if it is even permitted.

Yes.  Although this may not be what you are thinking, RONR gives an example of depriving members of such a right:  "A provision can be included to dispense with the ballot when there is only one candidate for an office, although this deprives members of the privilege of voting for “write-in” candidates in such a case."  RONR (12th ed.), 56:26

On 12/28/2022 at 7:36 PM, Jim Hickey said:

Hi George, There was no Point of Order made on the night of the election.  Thank you for providing info.  It is very helpful to me.

I would also refer you to Mr. Martin's post where he notes this (I think Mr. Novosielski was also trying to get this point across):

On 12/27/2022 at 11:34 AM, Josh Martin said:

First, the board (let alone a minority of the board) lacks the authority to make this determination, unless the bylaws provide otherwise. Because these elections were completed by the club's membership, only the club's membership has the authority to declare the elections invalid. A Point of Order, followed by an Appeal if necessary, would be raised regarding this matter at a meeting of the club's membership.

On 12/27/2022 at 3:23 PM, Guest Audrey said:

Due to flooding, the location of our meeting tomorrow night needs to be moved.  There is a 10-day posting requirement for meetings.  Is it possible to open the meeting at the original location and make a motion to move the rest of the meeting?  I cannot find a rule on-point for this scenario. 

Yes.  The motion to Fix The Time To Which To Adjourn would be used.  The motion should specify where and when the meeting will reconvene and is adopted by a majority vote.  See RONR (12th ed.), §22.

On 12/27/2022 at 11:15 AM, Jim Hickey said:

Hello,

Our club recently held its annual elections.  Because there were 2 positions with no candidates, requests were taken from the floor.  Several members volunteered but did not meet the requirements of being at 6 meeting.  The Board included these members in the candidate pool, even though they did not meet all requirements and continued with the vote.  In both instances, members who did not meet the 6 meeting minimum were elected by an overwhelming majority.  All elections were completed, recorded as final on the night of the meeting.  The following week, one Board member (who was present on election night) stated that these elected members should be removed and replaced with other members who did meet all requirements, even though they received a very small amount of the vote.  Yes, there is a bit of political infighting going on!!  The majority of the Officers have agreed that, even though there were errors made in allowing candidates to run, the election was completed with overwhelming result.  The question is, does a minority group of Officers have the right to refuse the candidate (who won with a large majority vote) and assign a candidate who received significantly lower votes the office.

 

Not exactly.  At a regular or properly called meeting a point of order should be made that those individuals did not meeting the requirements for holding office.  The point of order will be ruled on by the chair and subject to appeal if necessary.  If the point is well taken and not overturned on appeal, a new election for those two positions would be held.  Those who were already a candidate for office but did not receive the required majority vote have no special status, but can be nominated for the positions along with any other eligible members.

From your facts I'm not crystal clear that a proper point of order was made and ruled upon by the chair.  Perhaps you can clarify that for us.

See RONR (12th ed.), 46:48-9.

On 12/22/2022 at 8:04 AM, Josh Martin said:

I would say that, as a technical matter, the President is agreeing to appoint the person chosen by the assembly. But essentially, yes.

I think this is an important distinction because the rule is not suspendable at all, in my opinion.

On 12/21/2022 at 12:54 PM, Weldon Merritt said:

Good question. RONR 30:3(6) says that motion relating to voting and the polls are amendable. But 30:4 suggests that the issue of what method to use should not be treated as amendments. And truthfully, I think treating them as filling blanks makes the most sense. 

I agree, especially because, 12:92 states that filling a blank is not a form of amendment in itself.

On 12/21/2022 at 10:58 AM, Weldon Merritt said:

But PQ says that subsequent incidental motions are subject to the order, so the motion to take the vote by a counted vote seemingly would not be amendable.  So, is a member who wants to take the vote by a different method simply out of luck? Or would amendment of the motion be in order notwithstanding the PQ order?

30:4 states "Methods of Voting. In practice, the method of taking a vote usually can be agreed upon informally. But when different methods are suggested, they are usually treated not as amendments but as filling blanks, the vote normally being taken first on the one taking the most time."

So if they are usually treated not as amendments, are they amendments?

On 12/20/2022 at 4:03 PM, Tomm said:

Read it a million times but something just doesn't click! Seems to me that there's not much difference in allowing the assembly to remove the chair (62:12) than allowing the assembly to select members of a committee? 

From 2:14 - "Such rules relate to the orderly transaction of business in meetings and to the duties of officers in that connection."  It is all about what goes on in a meeting, when it comes to rules of order.

62:10-14  are things that happen in a meeting and relate to the transaction of business.

On 12/20/2022 at 3:34 PM, Tomm said:

Is this rule considered a Rule of Order and can be suspended?

No to both questions.  See RONR (12th ed.), 2:14-22 regarding rules of order.

On 12/15/2022 at 3:27 PM, Tomm said:

Per 25:9 n7, does a rule need to be suspended first or can any member of the board simply make the motion at any time? 

Any member can certainly make the motion to allow a non-member to speak at any time, but the vote required to adopt that motion will depend on whether or not the non-member wishes to speak in debate.  If he wishes to speak in debate a 2/3 vote will be required, otherwise, a majority vote will be sufficient.

Mr. Merritt, since the motion to limit or extend the limits of debate was never adopted in your scenario, there is no unexhausted order, is there?  

On 12/15/2022 at 12:12 PM, Tomm said:

Does the chair alone determine this or is it a vote and determined by the entire board?

 Once determine does it carry over to future meetings?

The board itself decides this and it applies until they rescind such a decision.

I don't see why it cannot.  35:6 notes an unexecuted part of an order can be rescinded.  So if C is unexecuted and can be rescinded, why would it be improper to have C rescinded and expunged?

If your organization follows the standard order of business (RONR 12th ed., 41:5), elections may fall under Special Orders (41:20).  

If not, RONR suggest that they be held early in the meeting. RONR (12th ed.), 46:31

On 12/13/2022 at 11:58 AM, Josh Martin said:

As a parliamentary matter, yes, but it may be advisable to also consult a lawyer on such questions.

Absolutely, but thanks for confirming my thoughts regarding RONR.

On 12/13/2022 at 9:32 AM, Richard Brown said:

I don’t know, but now that I have the 10th, 11th, and 12th editions in front of me I guess we’re about to find out. I don’t recall that there was any substantive change, but we will know soon.

I think it was in the 10th and removed from the 11th but please let me know, yes.