Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

RSW

Members
  • Posts

    68
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by RSW

  1. 57 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

    Could you quote the provision that you believe establishes a quorum requirement that you cannot change?

    Sure, happy to clarify. I'm going to use "parent organization" for our parent group, and "subsidiary organization" for our group.

    There's a document referred to as a "constitution" for the subsidiary organization. The subsidiary organization has no separate bylaws. This constitution is provided by the parent organization, and accepting it is a requirement for our subsidiary organization's existence. It provides:

    Quote

    This constitution may be amended only by a majority of the votes cast at an Annual Business Meeting or a special meeting of the voting membership of (parent organization)

    The Annual Business Meeting isn't *our* group - it's the *parent* group. Elsewhere in the constitution it provides:

    Quote

    A majority of the active individual membership shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of all business of (subsidiary organization).

    Since that second provision is in the constitution, the constitution specifies that it can only be amended by the parent organization, and there's no exception for adjusting the quorum anywhere in the constitution, I think that leaves us stuck.

    Regarding Mr. Martin's very understandable question, the provision is also in the constitution:

    Quote

    All actions of the (subsidiary organization) Executive Committee shall be submitted to (subsidiary organization) at the next business meeting for ratification. Any decision of the (subsidiary organization) Executive Committee which (subsidiary organization) fails to ratify shall be null and void.

     

  2. Okay....this is a bit complex, but hear me out.

    An organization is meeting, and they *frequently* don't make quorum. There are things they're *absolutely required* to do that they can't do, sometimes for months on end. 

    The solution to this would typically be to adjust the quorum (per guidance in 40:3). The problem is, the quorum is set at 50% in the bylaws, and the bylaws can't be amended because they're set by the parent organization. Fixing the problem on that level is a complete non-starter.

    So now we're down to what the organization *can* do.

    Membership in the organization is of three types - active, inactive, and honorary. A quorum is over half of *active* members. Moving a member to "inactive" status - which confers essentially no loss of privileges *other than* voting - removes them from the number needed for a quorum.

    The way they're removed from active membership is described in the bylaws as follows:

    Quote

    Inactive individual membership in this club may be conferred by the executive committee of this club on any individual member requesting an extended absence from club meetings, or who wishes to maintain individual membership without regular attendance at club meetings. An individual member may also be classified as inactive for continued absence without notice. An inactive individual member may be restored to active individual membership by the Club Executive Committee upon request.

    So....

    Is it permissible for the Executive Committee to pass a motion that automatically (i.e. "without the Executive Committee having to handle each case as it occurs") confers the "inactive" status after, say, three regular meetings have been missed? And a second motion that automatically reinstates said member upon their next attendance at a meeting? 

    And given that the organization must approve all Executive Committee actions for them to be valid, would such a standing rule be valid indefinitely once approved by the organization?

  3. 28 minutes ago, George Mervosh said:

    My own view of it is that if the vote is counted when voting on the main motion, the count should be entered into the minutes, whether ordered by the assembly, or the chair on his own initiative.

    Would your logic be that the point of *not* taking a count is to not be dilatory, but if you've already done it then the information is useful to record?

  4. 13 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

    However, the candidates receiving the fewest number of votes can also be removed from the ballot by virtue of a special rule of order or by the adoption of a motion suspending the rules and doing so while the election is pending.  Any candidates removed from the ballot using that method, however, remain eligible for election and their names can be written in on ballots.   When that method is used, it is hoped that members will limit their votes to those candidates who are actually on the ballot.  The  only way to make them ineligible for election is by means of a bylaw provision. 

    If we're moving to suspend the rules, purely technically, is it possible to suspend the rules in such a way as to take a vote where the final count completely ignores write-in candidates? 

    I'm guessing it's likely improper (or at the very least, a bad idea) - but wondering the grounds upon which that's the case. Barring bylaws or state laws to the contrary, of course, reading through section 25, I'm not seeing anything that just jumps out to me as to a reason.

  5. RONR 48:5(2)(a) provides:

    Quote

    When a count has been ordered, the number of votes on each side is entered, unless the vote was on a motion that would not otherwise be entered in the minutes.

    Does "a count has been ordered" solely mean when the assembly has ordered a count? Or does it apply to a count taken incidentally?

    For example, with many meetings happening online via Zoom it's very difficult to effectively do things like rising votes and such. So if a voice vote is questionable, or somebody calls "division!" I've seen situations where a chair will just conduct a Zoom poll. That poll, by its very nature, yields an exact count.

    Or in a particular in-person meeting, a chair may count for his own purposes *without* the assembly ordering it.

    If done, should that count be recorded in the minutes? Or should the count only be recorded if it was ordered by the assembly?

  6. 23 hours ago, par said:

    From your example: a 10year voting deadline? Sure, no problem. Not stupid at all. Just make sure the rule is included in by-laws.

    In addition to what Mr. Katz indicated, it's worth noting that RONR generally isn't intended to prevent the majority (especially a supermajority) of a group from doing something they want to do - whether that's conducting routine business or writing (potentially ill-conceived) bylaws. Whether the things decided are stupid or not is immaterial.

    I saw an organization once that struck the sentence from their bylaws that incorporated RONR as their parliamentary authority, and didn't replace it with anything. That decision was, from my point of view, pretty stupid - but it's the organization's right to do it, if that's really what they want to do. :)

  7. If you're balloting by mail, or in some other way where repeated votes are difficult, you could consider "ranked choice voting" - https://ballotpedia.org/Ranked-choice_voting_(RCV)

    Or if you're voting in person but people just won't budge on their votes, you could consider bylaws provisions to do something like drop the candidate with the lowest number of votes before re-balloting. That eventually whittles the field down to two.

  8. 21 minutes ago, Guest Jennie said:

    Question. Our Board of Directors started getting a little lazy and ratify/confirm 30+ motions at open board meetings. Is this abuse of the concept?

    This would get better attention as its own topic. :)

    That said, if the Board of Directors is holding a properly-called meeting, and the content of the things to be ratified are within the scope of its authority as a board, there's nothing that would prohibit them from ratifying a number of items as a block.

    Regarding motions, if there's no requirement they do something like permit others to speak to a motion, there's nothing to prevent them from introducing each motion and adopting it immediately by unanimous consent.

    RONR isn't designed to slow things down - it's designed to be an efficient way to accomplish things in an environment assumed to be potentially contentious. When there's no contention, it's very efficient. :)

  9. Thanks for the confirmation. :)

    Regarding the second part, when I said:

    58 minutes ago, RSW said:

    Presumably it would then be the responsibility of the assembly to find somebody that *could* get over 50% of the vote, or to have further debate and get some of the blanks / Donald Duck votes to switch?

    I was more going for the idea of "Candidate A doesn't just become 'elected' because he/she is unopposed". There are some groups that seem to have the idea that an unopposed candidate will automatically get elected.

  10. And if three opinionated parliamentarians at the meeting were differing about the proper way to get the original motion back on the table, but the rest of the assembly were (a) in agreement that the original motion needed to be reconsidered, and (b) tapping their feet and fidgeting uncomfortably, somebody could just propose a motion to suspend the rules in order to allow the reconsideration of the original (unamended) motion? :)

  11. On 5/21/2021 at 1:22 PM, Aguiberson said:

    They tell me another group put these amendments on a consent calendar.  

    If something is out of order to do "in gross" in a meeting, I'm not sure how putting it on a consent calendar would make it any more orderly.

    51:48(b) in RONR 12th would seem to cover your exact situation (some "agreeable" amendments, one or more "contentious" ones). 51:48(c) covers the approval of *all* amendments in one fell swoop. Unless I'm missing a reference you're making

  12. Per RONR 45:32:

    Quote

    All ballots that indicate a preference—provided they have been cast by persons entitled to vote—are taken into account in determining the number of votes cast for purposes of computing the majority. Each such ballot is credited to the voter’s preferred candidate or choice if the meaning of the ballot is clear and the choice is valid. Unintelligible ballots or ballots cast for an unidentifiable or ineligible candidate are treated instead as illegal votes—that is, they are counted as votes cast but are not credited to any candidate or choice.

    So in the situation of a single candidate (Candidate A) and a bylaws-required ballot vote, let's say there are 100 ballots collected. This candidate is very unpopular, so these are broken down as:

    * Candidate A - 35 votes
    * Blank ballots - 25 votes
    * Donald Duck - 40 votes

    Per RONR, it would seem that the blank ballots get set off to the side, because they're blank. Obviously Donald Duck isn't an eligible candidate, and therefore can't be elected. It seems RONR is saying that we would subtract the blank ballots from the total (100), as there's no candidate preference indicated. That gives us 75 votes for computing the majority, and thus Candidate A received 35/75, which isn't a majority. Donald Duck is ineligible to be elected, so a re-ballot is therefore required.

    Am I understanding this correctly?

    Presumably it would then be the responsibility of the assembly to find somebody that *could* get over 50% of the vote, or to have further debate and get some of the blanks / Donald Duck votes to switch?

  13. 42 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

    I note, however, that the question at issue in this particular appears to be whether the Vice President is required to resign from that office prior to the election, and I think we can all agree that the answer to that is clearly "No."

    Absolutely agree. 

    42 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

    My understanding of the facts is that the person in question is not crazy and therefore has no desire to serve as both President and Vice President and has resigned (or will resign) as Vice President following that person's election as President. So I don't think the question of whether there is a prohibition on this enters into it.

    I agree 100% that if the person has submitted a resignation post-election the issue is indeed closed in the case of OP's organization. OP's statement was that "Now that she won the election this leaves the vp position vacant," and it seemed to me as if OP was stating that the winning itself vacated the VP position.

    I may be reading too closely on this and seeing something that's not there, but that statement by itself ("this leaves the vp position vacant") is not inherently true by my reading. The bylaws would either have to provide for it happening automatically (expiration of term, or that an officer may only hold one office), or the VP would have to submit their resignation as you believe likely already happened. Otherwise, they're *still the vice president* post-election.

    Practically speaking, in such a case (no resignation submitted / accepted) the office is not vacant.

    42 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

    I can understand this view, but I'm not sure exactly what problem we are trying to solve. Is anyone aware of societies which are electing people as President and Vice President?

    Sure. In a group like a Toastmasters club, there's a president and three VPs with roles differentiated by areas of responsibility. This is in addition to secretary, treasurer, and SAA. There's a hierarchy of the VPs provided for by bylaws, but the president and secretary are *required* offices where any given VP is *optional*.

    In such a case, it's not completely unheard of for the president and the highest-ranking VP to be held by the same person as the president is an office that's absolutely required, but the highest-ranking VP actually has the most responsibility on a day-to-day basis so is thus essential rather than required.

    Is it optimal? No. Is it *wise*? No, unless the organization ceases to exist otherwise, in which case it depends on how much one values the organization's continued existence. But is it *legal*, per RONR? As far as I can tell, yes.

    And particularly, per my thought above, a VP doing something like stepping up to fill a vacancy of the presidency mid-term would not procedurally vacate that VP's office. They would have to take separate action to do so.

    In any similar organization (bylaws with hard requirements that offices be filled, and a lack of candidates to do so - as is potentially the case with OP's organization, as the VP spot seemingly stands vacant) I could see the concept being very applicable.

  14. 1 hour ago, Rob Elsman said:

    I believe @RSW has misunderstood the question posed.  As far as I know, Robert's Rules has never explained the reason. 

    I was merely commenting on the OP's observation that it seems inefficient.

    As for the rationale, I agree with Mr. Brown's hypothesis that General Robert may have thought it "unseemly", and nobody ever decided it needed to be corrected. There's a lot of tradition in parliamentary procedure that would appear to stem from that sort of rationale. 

  15. 1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

    But in this case there is no indication that the member in question actually ran for the office of vice president nor that she was elected to it.

    Agreed, although OP's assessment of whether she still held the office could be based on the very assumption that I'm questioning below. 

    1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

    We were told that she ran for and was elected president and that the office of vice president is vacant.  That leads me to believe that no one ran for vice president, but we Have not been told that explicitly.

    The reason I quoted Mr. Honemann's quoting of Guest Puzzling's reply is that he quoted the text as if it were a certainty that she would have to resign as VP in order to accept the role of president.

    I believe that OP considers that statement true, but because it's not clear to me from RONR I'm wondering if RONR provides the requirement somewhere that I'm missing as Mr. Honemann is certainly more familiar with this topic than I am. :) If it were a matter of bylaws providing for it, I would have expected the note that RONR contains no such prohibition but that an organization's bylaws may have more to say on the matter.

    1 hour ago, Rob Elsman said:

    Yes, because it is silly. 😊

    I'm a member of a rather large organization with semi-autonomous sub-groups where people *routinely* hold multiple executive offices simultaneously. I still think it's bizarre, but it happens - and as far as I'm aware our bylaws don't explicitly carve out the exceptions *other than* to dictate that two specific positions can't be the same person.

    The fact that we think something is silly doesn't mean it's "strictly forbidden".

  16. 10 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:
    11 hours ago, Guest Puzzling said:

    I do think she will have to resign her position as Vice President when elected as president. In any case she will not get 2 votes, (votes are one per member, not per office)

     

    RONR 45:31 provides:

    Quote

    (The assembly is free, however, to elect the same person to another office on a subsequent ballot, unless the bylaws prohibit a person from holding both offices simultaneously.)

    This would *seem* to imply that somebody could hold multiple offices simultaneously unless the bylaws prohibit it, which would seem to imply that RONR contains no such prohibition.

    Is there an exception for President that I'm missing? I didn't see anything relevant in RONR 47, but I may have missed something. I fully concede that it would be pretty silly for somebody to be both President and Vice President, but is it strictly forbidden?

  17. 2 minutes ago, Guest Stanley D. Banash said:

    The person receiving the next highest number of votes elected to those offices not selected by the candidate is the winner, and so on.

    Default with RONR requires a majority vote, with re-balloting if an ineligible candidate wins. 46:31 provides:

    Quote

    For this reason, a candidate is never deemed elected to more than one office by a single ballot unless the motion or rules governing the election specifically provide for such simultaneous election. When there is no such provision, a candidate who receives a majority for more than one office on a single ballot must, if present, choose which one of the offices he will accept; if he is absent, the assembly decides by a ballot vote the office to be assigned to him. This question, which is debatable, requires a majority vote for adoption. The assembly then ballots again to fill the other office(s).

    If you wind up in a scenario where somebody is potentially on the ballot for multiple offices, you may want to use separate ballots and do each office sequentially. At the point they win one election, their name would then be withdrawn for subsequent ballots or, if your bylaws don't prohibit it, 46:31 continues:

    Quote

    (The assembly is free, however, to elect the same person to another office on a subsequent ballot, unless the bylaws prohibit a person from holding both offices simultaneously.)

     

  18. You'll note that moving based on a single officer's report is phrased as a "a motion can be made", whereas moving based on a committee's recommendation is phrased as "the chairman or other reporting member should make any motion(s) necessary".

    A committee's report, by definition, already has enough support behind it to be worthy of bringing motions to the floor. A particular officer's report may or may not have such support. And if literally nobody else is interested in pursuing the recommendations it's actually *more* efficient to not move them in the first place.

×
×
  • Create New...