ddlatham

Thanks. I did consult the bylaws and quoted originally what I believe are the only relevant sections. I understand if you do not wish to offer interpretations of them. I appreciate input from anyone who does, and particular any effects they have on the rules in RONR.

From the comments I've read above, I think there is consensus that: (1) As it stands now only the actual ministry board chair is a member and can vote (2) If the church desires to allow a ministry board to have an alternate when the chair is unavailable, then the best course of action is to specify that in the bylaws, and (3) In the meantime, it is possible, but perhaps impractical, for a ministry board to change its chair for a period of time if proper notice is given and procedures followed. Thanks, Josh, Rob, and Atul for your time and answers.

Ah, thanks for sharing the requirement for filling a vacancy. I see that in RONR 47:58. In that case, would it suffice to give notice to the members of the ministry board (both times) that the chair intends to resign and that an election will be held to fill the vacancy? If that is done, would the course of action be permissible?

Thanks for your responses. I'm having a hard time understanding what part of the whole there would be an issue with: At a meeting of the ministry board: 1) Person A resigns as chair of the ministry board. 2) Ministry board elects a new member, person B, as chair. Person B is now a member of the executive board by virtue of his/her office as chair of the ministry board. Later, at a meeting of the executive board: 3) Person B attends and participates as a member. Later, at another meeting of the ministry board: 4) Person B resigns as chair of the ministry board 5) Ministry board elects Person A as chair. Which particular step is not permissible? Or something about the sequence when taken as a whole? I could see reasons that it is not advisable. The new chair would be responsible for the duties of the chair in between the meetings. It would require cooperation from the parties involved, and if the new chair didn't resign, then it could leave a tricky situation. But it does seem possible, to me.

In the course of action proposed above, it would not be considered a temporary occupant of chair, but rather an actual change in fact of the regular position of chair, albeit expected to be a limited duration (for example, a single month until the next ministry board meeting). It would not be simply for the duration of a single meeting. Does that make sense, and is it permissible?

If I read 47:11 correctly, it is focused on the chair of an assembly being unable to preside at a meeting of that assembly. But in this case, I'm trying to distinguish between two different, but related assemblies. The ministry board selects a chair, who then is an ex-officio member of the executive board, but not the chair of the executive board. If the chair of the ministry board is going to be unavailable for a meeting of the executive board, I'm suggesting that the ministry board could, ahead of time, elect a different chair (of the ministry board) who would be able to attend that upcoming executive board meeting. Then, afterward, the ministry board could choose to again elect the former chair of the ministry board to restore their position. In this scenario, I would envision each chair of the ministry board cooperating and voluntarily resigning to allow the change of position, though I am curious if that is necessary. Would this course of action be permissible under RONR?

Thanks, Josh, for your helpful response. What you say makes sense, and I verified it by reviewing RONR 25:9 (can't suspend fundamental principles), 45:2,70 (only members may vote, no proxies is a fundamental principle). One follow-up: As a possible workaround, could a ministry board actually decide to elect a new chair who was available for the desired executive board meeting, and then later elect the former chair again? (Assuming the above quoted portions of the bylaws are the only relevant sections).

Our church bylaws give a structure with several ministry boards, for example Missions, Facilities, Deacons, etc. The bylaws state that each "shall select its own chairman and secretary and such other officers and committees as may be needed to efficiently conduct their work and carry out their responsibilities and shall adopt operating procedures and guidelines applicable to its area of responsibility". Then there is also an executive Church Board which "shall consist of the Lead Pastor, Chairman, Vice Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer, Chairmen of each of the Ministry Boards and two (2) at-large members selected by the congregation". Thus the executive board has representation from each ministry board (its chair). This helps with communication between the boards. There are times when the chair of a ministry board may not be available for an executive Church Board meeting, but there may be important reports, communication, or even votes to be taken, and the ministry board would like to be able to participate in it. One proposal that has been made is for ministry board chairs (or the ministry boards themselves) to send a different member of that board to act as a representative to the execute Church Board meeting, to speak, listen, and participate in votes in place of the chairman. Perhaps they could be elected vice chair of that ministry board to act in the absence of the chair. My question, is whether this would be permissible under RONR and the relevant portions of our bylaws quoted above? If not, could it be allowed by enacting some sort of special rule of order, by the executive board, or the congregation itself? Or would the bylaws themselves need to be amended? Thanks for your consideration.

Yes, this is part of the understanding I gained above. I find it interesting that such is the case. I do find it plausible for an assembly to envision certain offices that would be valuable to have, but not mandatory if no suitable, willing candidate can by identified. Indeed the situation has occurred in our experience. From what I've learned from all of your helpful input, that is not allowed under RONR, but the bylaws themselves could be written to permit such an arrangement. In fact, I've heard that some organizations have bylaws that define a range of sizes permitted for a board, for example. To me, that sounds like a similar case, where seats beyond the minimum could be valuable, but are not required to be filled if the assembly chooses not to.

I mean that Robert's Rules seems to require voting to continue until someone is elected to an office. Suppose a majority of an assembly would prefer to leave an office vacant rather than elect anyone any currently willing candidate. It doesn't sound there is any provision in RONR to make such a choice, without putting that into the bylaws to supersede it. Presumably if such were possible and happened, then the assembly would continue on with other business, or adjourn. The vacancy would be treated as other vacancies are, and may be filled in the future by similar procedures depending on what the bylaws specify for filling vacancies, for example, temporary appointment by the board, or waiting until the following annual meeting for a new election. On a related note, is there any prescription in RONR for how to handle a case when there is a particular office for which no willing candidate can be found? Would it be to postpone the election for that office? At our church, this has happened, and typically the other offices are filled and we just move on to other business or adjourn the meeting. This is apparently not proper, but is done without any objection and doesn't sound like a grave issue or continuing breach. The unfilled offices are typically seats on certain boards or committees which continue with their business with the remaining members.

Thank you, Josh, Atul, and Gary for your helpful responses. I have a much better understanding of how RONR applies to this sort of election. It's interesting to me that RONR doesn't provide a direct way for an assembly to express a preference to leave a position vacant in an election, but I understand that can be addressed in the bylaws if desired. I do believe that some members (perhaps most) believe the bylaws text quoted above refers to "a majority of votes cast" to mean a majority of ballots submitted, since it doesn't say "a majority of votes cast for that office" or section. I suspect that was even the intent of those who drafted the bylaws. I wonder if that itself is evidence of that part of the bylaws being ambiguous.

Thanks, Phil, for your reply and the references into RONR. To add more clarity to the format of the ballot, it had a section for each board. Under that section, there was a line for each seat/position, specifying the remaining term for that seat. Some lines had names printed (and some had nominations from the floor given). Also in each section, below the lines for each seat, there were additional lines for write-in candidates. Each line had a space for "Yes", but there were not "No" options. For example: RONR 46:33 and 46:34 are particularly relevant, thank you. It seems that if we view each seat/position as a separate "section", then what matters is how many votes cast for that position only. However, if each board is a "section" with a mix of terms, then what matters is how many ballots had any vote for any name for that board (rather than total ballots turned in), which I believe is yet a third interpretation that nobody advanced at the meeting. Further comments or perspectives are welcomed.

Our church just held our annual meeting, including elections for officers and board positions, and a question arose about how to interpret certain voting results. We have several boards for different ministries. Most terms are for 3 years, and the seats on the board are staggered to be elected in different years to foster continuity. However, sometimes vacancies occur for a partial term. For example, there may be one seat up for election to a full 3 year term, and another seat that was 1 year remaining on its term. Our nominating committee prepared a ballot with 0 or 1 member nominated for each seat of each board, and a box to check Yes next to each one. The question that came up was that if 100 ballots were turned in (for example), and only 1 ballot was marked Yes next to a particular name for a seat, and the other 99 all left that one blank, would that name be elected or not? Our bylaws include this sentence regarding elections: "Voting shall be by secret ballot and election to office shall require a majority of the votes cast by members present and voting." There were different interpretations offered. One interpretation (which carried the day) was that there were would be 100 votes cast, and only 1 for this name, so that would not be a majority and that person would not be elected. The seat would remain vacant. Another interpretation was that each seat is its own election, and there was only 1 vote cast total for anyone for that seat, so that vote is itself a majority and the person would be elected. I'll refrain from revealing which is my own interpretation. Fortunately when the votes were counted the question turned out to be moot, but I would like to better understand for next time. Some questions for which I would appreciate an answer: 1) Is one of those interpretations correct? 2) Does it matter how many votes were cast for other seats on the same board? Whether they have the same term or not? 3) If the interpretation by most people is wrong, would that render the result invalid, or does the body get to interpret the bylaws & Robert's Rules any way it wants, whether or not it's "wrong"? 4) Does it matter if there is previous tradition of treating the matter one way or the other? 5) What's the best way of allowing the church to elect not to fill a seat with anyone? Thanks so much for your time and consideration.

Thank you very much, Daniel, Josh, and Gary. You have won me a burrito!

Can anyone help us settle a friendly disagreement regarding elections for our church? Our church bylaws have specific requirements for the process by which people are nominated and placed on the ballot: 1- One of us believes that the bylaws are specific enough to indicate how a member is placed on the ballot ((1) through the Nominating Committee or (2) floor nomination process). If a write-in candidate is neither nominated by the Nominating Committee nor added to the ballot through the floor nomination procedure, then the person could not serve on the board. The fact that the ballot process is outlined in the bylaws precludes a write-in from being elected to the board unless the process was followed to add them to the voting ballot as prescribed in the by-laws. 2- The other of us believes since the by-laws don't specifically preclude write-in candidates, then a write-in candidate can be elected to a position on the the board. Must our ballot also allow for write-in candidates who have not gone through the nomination process? Must such votes be counted?