Shmuel Gerber

There's nothing wrong with voting on amendments affecting three parts of the bylaws in one motion. In fact, if the amendments are related in such a way that it would not make sense to adopt one and reject the others, then they must be voted on together. (Normally, however, the parliamentarian should not be the one presenting a motion.)

I would say that "all of them" refers to D & E, and "also" refers to all the others. It doesn't really matter, because:

I agree that the rule is confusing, but the bottom line is that if repeated balloting is necessary -- whether because not enough received a majority or because some were tied in the rankings -- all of the candidates who have not been elected remain on the ballot: all of the ones who received a majority but who tied for the last available place(s), and also all of those who did not receive a majority at all (and, perhaps unstated, also all of the ones who received a majority but came in below last place).

The cited rule (numbered by sentences) is: "(1) In an election of members of a board or committee in which votes are cast in one section of the ballot for multiple positions on the board or committee, every ballot with a vote for one or more candidates is counted as one vote cast, and a candidate must receive a majority of the total of such votes to be elected. (2) In such a case, if more than the prescribed number receive a majority vote, the places are filled by the proper number receiving the largest number of votes. (3) If less than the proper number receive a majority vote, those who do have a majority are elected, and all others remain as candidates for the necessary repeated balloting. (4) Similarly, if some individuals receive a majority but are tied for the lowest position that would elect, all of them also remain as candidates on the next ballot." In this example, there is no repeated balloting necessary, because five candidates are elected according to the rule in sentence 2. The last two sentences therefore do not enter in. In sentence 3, "tied for the lowest position that would elect" refers to the lowest position that has a majority AND has the largest number of votes -- in this example, that would mean those who are tied for fifth (or greater) place, not all those who receive a majority. But here, D & E are not tied for fifth place; they are tied for fourth and fifth places, so they each take one slot (doesn't matter which, since they are identical offices), and the election is over.

(I added that comment mainly so that this topic could qualify for the Advanced Discussion forum.)

One thing is certain: the rule should say "whoever," not "whomever."

What should happen is that the chair says, "There is less than a majority in the affirmative, and the motion is lost."

I think you misread the original discussion and continue to have the wrong impression. Check out this https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/26031-canceling-special-meetings/?do=findComment&comment=147776 and this https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/26165-constitutional-change/?do=findComment&comment=148730

I think there's been enough metadiscussion. Any more and I may have to lock the thread.🙂

Thank you. I wasn't able to download the file so I couldn't see the exact format, but I wonder where they got it from to begin with.

I think Mr. George is trying to understand FAQ 6.

Actually, I've never quite understood this. What difference does it make whether a provision in the bylaws allowing for a suspension of the rules is contained within the provision being suspended or within some other provision? In other words, if provision A says that provision B can be suspended, would anyone argue that provision B cannot be suspended because provision B does not allow for its own suspension?

Are you saying that blockchain voting technology is so advanced, it could be mistaken for slips of paper?

RONR defines ballots as "slips of paper on which the voter marks his vote" (p. 412, ll. 13-14). A machine is not the same as slips of paper in many respects, including things such as verification of the totals and recounts, and even in terms of confidence that a member's vote has been accepted.

No. (Unless you're talking about a member of a parent committee who is not a member of the actual subcommittee that is meeting.)

I don't see any problem with voting by this method if authorized by a special rule of order or a convention standing rule, but it is not clear that it would fulfill a requirement in the bylaws that a vote be taken by ballot.

A meeting is a meeting -- all members of the body that is meeting must receive the proper notice, regardless of whether the meeting will enter into executive session for some or all of the meeting time. What do you mean by "knowing that not ALL can attend"?

Page 43, line 17.

You ended up with a bowl of salad for a soup?

🙂

Did you substitute "pronouns" for "prepositions"?

Or at least disabuse them of it. 🙂

There's no rule against it. However, "In debate, the maker of a motion, while he can vote against it, is not allowed to speak against his own motion. He need not speak at all, but if he does he is obliged to take a favorable position." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 393) Nobody is allowed to cast two votes on the same motion unless the body's rules specifically say so. In addition, if this is obviously a tactic to "force" the second motion to be adopted after the first one is defeated, the members on the other side can simply create a tie vote on the second motion as well.

Yes. If the bylaws say what the dues shall be, then a motion to "temporarily override the normal dues amount" obviously conflicts with the bylaws.

But, as shown in your first quotation, RONR does not say that the word "meeting," by itself, should generally understood to refer to "session" unless a distinction is made. It speaks only of interpreting "common expressions such as 'regular ... meeting,'" etc. In general, the word needs to be interpreted in context.