Baofeng Ma

Our bylaws say "Election shall be by ballot". It is assumed that the vice president was elected by ballot in the meeting, but I am not very sure of that. The procedure: 1. One person sends a link (google doc, not editable by the others ) in our Zoon chat. 2. Everybody could check a favorite candidate after clicking the link. 3. Submit when a candidate is chosen. 4. The person (teller) calculates the results (votes for each candidate). Not sure: 5. Does the teller know who vote for the candidate? 6. Does the teller report a wrong result ? It looks it is hard to find a suitable software for ballot voting.

In our unit Zoom meeting (Dec 2022), the officers were elected. There are two candidates for vice president position. The names were put on goggle doc (ballot) without write-in option provided. 45:18 says " On a ballot vote in an election or other vote involving multiple possible choices, members are able to write in or fill in a vote for any eligible person or choice and are not confined to voting for or against candidates that appear on the ballot." It looks that our voting procedure was against this rule, but no body raised it, therefore would it be ok? How does the write-in matter?

A very good clarification. I learned a lot. Many thanks.

It is a good point. I have not been aware of this because 5:3-4 says secondary motions are built on a pending motion. Could you give some examples of a motion to suspend the rules, which is still an incidental motion when no question is pending. Probably the examples could be based on 25:17-18 or somewhere in RONR (12th ed.) Thanks.

Yeah, I agree. I should be more careful of claiming something. Thanks.

I am not very sure what is exactly "improperly interjected". Is it a scenario similar to the below? When a member was debating, the maker interrupted the speaker and stated the intervening motion without recognition by Chair.

I agree. That it is not proper to say "it is an amendment to the main motion." I would like to break down step by step for the question by the author. 1. Label "a motion" as Motion1. We don't know which category it is, maybe main motion, primary motion, any motion. 2. Label "a new motion" as Motion2. It might be either an amendment, or a different motion including a change to Motion1. I believe it is the "intervening motion" called by the author. From the facts presented, the maker did not seek recognition from chair. I tend to believe it was made improperly. I don't think there is no need of record in the minutes.

No. It is an amendment to the main motion.

I would like to emphasize that the incidental motion could be treated as an incidental main motion just like the motion to suspend the rules when no question is pending. Practically I don’t know it is meaningful to distinguish between these concepts. For example, in one case that occurred in our unit meeting, after the amendment to the bylaws was adopted, I found the notice is less than 30 days. I raised a point of order (no question was pending then) and the chair ruled the adoption was null and void. The amendment was taken up at the next meeting.

Corrected.

To me it is resemblance to motion to suspend the rules. 25:2(1) “Can be made at any time when no question is pending”, 25:4 “In making the incidental motion to suspend the rules, the particular rule or rules to be suspended are not mentioned” Similarly when no question is pending, a point of order is an incidental motion trying to bring a question (a violation of the bylaws here) before the assembly.

It looks that the point of order fits what is described here, Incidental main motion, 10:4, 2).

Yeah, the continuing breach is discussed in 23:6 saying “a continuing nature, whereby”, supporting your opinion. However I would rather say it is an incidental main motion based on 6:23 saying that “Counterparts of some of the incidental motions may occur as incidental main motion.” to keep conceptually consistent.

Incidental motions are all secondary motions, being made when a motion is pending. 5:2

If it is an incidental motion, which relates to the pending business, it must be decided immediately before business can proceed. 6:15. The point of order raised above does not have these characteristics.

If the member making a motion that needs recognition to be made is not recognized by the chair, the motion is not made improperly. 4:4. Making a main motion is out of order during discussion of a motion made and seconded. 5:4. Don’t record it in the minute. Only record certain secondary motions. 48:4,7)

I understand it is “state the question”. After a motion is made and seconded, the next step is to state the question. 4:15. 48:4,6) supports Gary’s opinion: record any main motion made, even not seconded. It says “All main motions or motions to bring a main motion again before the assembly that was made or taken up”

If the chair raises a point of order at the next meeting, it would be a main motion because there is no motion pending in the meeting.

Conforming corrections should be simpler. Delegating its authority by adopting a resolution? 57:19

Another way is “series of amendments” to previously adopted text by means of a single incidental main motion. 35:5. 27:5.

Isolated changes. 57:3.

Conforming amendments, RONR( 12th ed.) 12:15.

Thanks for reminding. I have been thinking whether I should reply to it.

I reported to the parent organization (that probably most people know here) of another society to which it is related closely in some way. It seems that no one cares. The organization needs more members for collecting fees.

No one knows where the money was from. Yes, the education is provided by unpaid members. In contrast the trainees would get paid when they passed a certain test. Unfortunately it indeed promotes democracy. I totally agree that investing energy is not worthy. I just wonder if there is a way to correct it according to RONR. No, they did not put the bylaws on their website.