GigiA

Sure—I totally understand that, but the group wants to offer them as a group unless there is any objection. Bylaws revisions in the past have passed without any debate and they would like to avoid proposing each and every one individually, unless there is someone who wants to discuss. I know NAP did this in their convention so I know it's possible? Just trying to figure out the correct wording.

Hi wise parliamentarians! I need a script for handling bylaws amendments in bulk. Most, if not all, are very uncontroversial, and the membership would like to handle as efficiently as possible without reading and voting on each one individually. I know at the NAP conference this was done and people could pull out individual amendments to discuss, but it went quickly so I wasn't quite able to capture how to do that. I've looked in all the NAP script books and haven't been able to find anything that does this. Can someone help? I don't want to get it wrong. Thank you!

Thank you! I wasn't sure if skipping the nominating committee process would get us into trouble. Thanks!

Thank you so much for your input! It is much appreciated. ❤️

An organization had its annual convention, including elections, but there was no candidate for one of the offices. The bylaws state "The term of office shall be for two years, or until a successor is elected." which leaves the previous officeholder in place until an election can be held. I have advised the group that we have an incomplete election, and, per RONR, the election should be completed as soon as possible. The next opportunity will be in the fall, which will be called as a special meeting to complete the election. The question is—who is credentialed to vote in the incomplete election? The bylaws state: "The delegates and alternates selected shall be delegates and alternates to attend any Special Meeting of the State which may be held prior to the Annual Convention of the next year. " Many of the delegates are selected by virtue of the office they hold, however in the time between the annual convention and now, some of those officers have been replaced with new officers. Are the NEW officers entitled to a vote as per their office? Or do the former officers who were credentialed at the Annual Convention still have a vote?

Hi there— A group usually has a nominating committee and election every 3 years. This year, no nominating committee was convened, and no election was held, despite being required in the bylaws. Would the best course of action be to elect a nominating committee, and then hold the election? Or just to hold the election at the next available opportunity as detailed in RONR 46:45? Officers are elected "for a term of 3 years or until their successors are elected. " so the current officers are still in place until an election can be held. Here is the language for the nominating committee (which was not elected): "In the year of an election, a nominating committee of 3 members shall be elected at the Regular Meeting in April or May. It shall be the duty of this committee to nominate a candidate, whose consent to serve has been obtained, for each office to be filled. Additional nominations may be made from the floor, with prior consent of the nominee. " The June meeting (which has already passed) is the Annual Meeting, and is when the election should have taken place. Thank you!

There is no mention of election by acclamation in the bylaws. "Election shall be by ballot." Of course, the easiest thing to do would be to just hold the ballot vote now and amend the bylaws to remove the requirement for a ballot vote—it just seems there is resistance to doing things differently than they have been (incorrectly) doing things, regardless of what the bylaws and RONR say.

To continue the question from the first example.... Let's say Officers were declared elected by acclamation despite the bylaw provision requiring a ballot vote and against the parliamentarian's advice. If a point of order is raised, and the chair rules the point NOT well taken (against the parliamentarian's advice), and an appeal is raised, and the assembly sustains the decision of the chair (again, because they they don't want to bother with a ballot). Is the matter closed? Or, since it's a continuous breech, can a point of order be raised at each continuing session? Or are there further steps that a member can take?

Thank you—I agree, but wasn't sure if I was being overdramatic.

Experienced Parliamentarians— What do you do if your organization just doesn't want to follow your advice/roberts rules? For example, bylaws require a ballot, but there is only one candidate for each position so they are planning on announcing candidates elected by acclamation, even though this is clearly against the bylaws, because they don't want to bother with the ballot. How do you handle this kind of situation?

Gotcha. Makes sense! Thank you!

I can't seem to find anything about suspending the requirement for the quorum if all members are present, can you point me in the right direction?

pre-SEED... but I have always pronounced Precedence as PRESS-uh-dence. I have just never heard anyone say pre-SEED-n's other than in a Parliamentary context (and even then, I have heard a lot of folks say PRESS-uh-dence). Just was wondering if there's a cool story or explanation of the different pronunciations. I do like that it does distinguish from precedents, as you noted!

Does anyone know why "precedence" is pronounced Pre-SEED-n's as per RONR 12th Ed 5:8 n2? Where did this pronunciation come from? Is it just an older pronunciation?

If a new organization must be formed, what happens to the assets of the prior organization? Flag, Gavel, (small) bank account balance?

Sorry to go dark for a bit... Yes, my question is if the quorum is a fixed number, say 10 members—but no one has kept a membership roll for many years, and as far as anyone knows, there are only 5 current members, though there may be members that no one knows about. (There was a provision for "life" membership, but there is no current contact information for those members, and honestly, many of them may be deceased at this point). One of the reasons I personally prefer a quorum to be a percentage—so that you don't end up in this pickle...

What happens if a society goes dormant for many years, and the membership count, due to deaths and dormant members, is less than the required quorum? Is the only remedy to sign up enough new members to make the quorum requirement? What if members need to be voted on for admission to the society, but there is no way to hold a meeting with a required quorum?

I believe it was a voice vote "all those in favor aye, all those opposed, no." I agree she should have been declared elected by acclamation.

Basically the "nos" insisted that they had a right to be heard and demanded a yes/no vote. The Chair and Parliamentarian were taken aback and allowed it.

There is no provision in the bylaws or standing rules allowing a yes/no vote. Ballots are not required. Thank you! ❤️

A friend of mine was running unopposed for a position when a group of voters decided to vote "no" on her candidacy—despite the fact that RONR clearly states that the only way to vote "no" is to vote for a different eligible candidate (46:1). There was an RP present but the improper vote was allowed to go through and her candidacy was voted down, and the position is now currently vacant. No one objected or raised a point of order at the meeting. Since the position held is currently vacant, the group set an adjourned meeting for 1 month's time to address the vacancy of the position. It seems the "nos" have proposed a bylaws change that would change the eligibility requirements and allow a different candidate, who is not currently eligible, to be elected. Does my friend have any recourse? I am pretty upset, especially since a parliamentarian allowed such an improper vote to go through.

I think the intention was to say the majority of meetings need to be held in person but that a minority of the meetings could be held virtually (there is obviously some information missing there). Do you think we would be able to pull the Timothy Wynn option below, of holding a 1 person meeting in 1 location, and everyone else participates virtually? Our membership does not feel comfortable meeting in person.

nonprofit in NYS. Bylaws state: The bylaws never state that electronic meetings are expressly allowed, however that first clause about the majority of meetings being in person is confusing people—as it seems to imply that a minority of meetings does not have to be held in person? The Quorum section does not address whether members participating electronically are counted as part of the quorum or not. There is nothing about the meeting location in the bylaws. What do you think? Are electronic meetings allowed?