John Wilford

On 5/2/2024 at 10:09 PM, Atul Kapur said:

Easier than all that would be to word the motion with a specific date as the deadline, rather than a number of days ahead.

Completely agree on this point. Unfortunately the situation in the case behind the question is a rule stating "shall be completed within twenty (20) days of taking office" so unfortunately we're unable to use this best practice 😒 and for reasonable motivation on the part of the crafters of the rule as the date of taking office could vary.

If you look up Computation of Days in RONR 12, you will find three sections that basically say the same thing. I'll quote one below.

Quote

56:34    Some organizations prefer to schedule meetings by resolution. If so, the bylaws should provide for the number of days' notice required before regular meetings, since under such a practice members cannot determine the meeting dates by consulting the bylaws. Unless otherwise provided in the bylaws, the number of days is computed by counting all calendar days (including holidays and weekends), excluding the day of the meeting but including the day the notice is sent.

These all deal with notice for meetings. Here is what I can't find: if a motion or rules of a society require action to be taken within x number of days, how are those calculated? At first, it would appear obvious, but thinking about it, I'm not sure it is. Taking guidance from above. All days, excluding the day of the meeting, should include the day of the notice. What are the analogs here? Is the notice the day of the motion or trigger to the rule, and the meeting is the action? In that case, it would seem if the rule said 30 days, you would include the day of the triggering action, go out 30 days, and if you did it on the 31st day, then you would be safe because you don't count that one. Is it the other way, such that the day of the triggering event is the meeting, so you don't count that one, but you have to do it on the 30th day? Or do you get one less day for taking action than you do for noticing meetings? Any help or references would be much appreciated.

On 11/3/2022 at 2:57 PM, Josh Martin said:

I don't know whether it is correct or not that your bylaws do not allow for subsidiary motions for electronic voting, but the answer to such a question will be found in your bylaws, not RONR.

What I was indicating is that by its nature, it didn't allow it. There is nothing in the bylaws explicitly denying it.

On 11/3/2022 at 2:57 PM, Josh Martin said:

"A group that attempts to conduct the deliberative process in writing—such as by postal mail, electronic mail (e-mail), or facsimile transmission (fax)—does not constitute a deliberative assembly. When making decisions by such means, many situations unprecedented in parliamentary law will arise, and many of its rules and customs will not be applicable (see also 9:30–36)." RONR (12th ed.) 1:1n1

This is helpful, thank you!

Our executive committee has a bylaw that allows us to conduct business via electronic vote it reads

Quote

V. Electronic Voting.
A. The SLEC may request to vote on an issue by email or online forums outside of a meeting if 10% of current members of the body request a vote by forum or email.
B. The chair shall clearly present the issue as a motion to be voted upon by forum or email. If this does not occur within one week after the request to vote the vote on this issue shall not be taken up unless another request to vote is started.
C. At least 48 hours shall be given after the motion is given before a final tally may be counted. If enough yea votes of all current members to require passage have not been submitted within 96 hours the motion shall be considered failed.
D. If the method of casting votes was hidden then all members along with the name of each member and his or her vote shall be shown along with the final result.

After a motion was recently presented and received the requisite 10% but before it had been put up for a vote another member asked for 10% support for an amendment. The chair is waiting for the 10% for that amendment motion before starting the vote on the original motion to see if the amendment should be put to the body. I don't believe this is proper as an amendment is a subsidiary motion and RONR12 6:6 states

Quote

(1) They are always applied to another motion while it is pending, to aid in treating or disposing of it; the adoption of one of them always does something to this other motion—that is, changes its status in some way—without adopting or expressly rejecting it...

(5) They are in order during the entire time that a motion to which they can be applied is pending, except as may be precluded by a previously adopted motion to Limit or Extend Limits of Debate or for the Previous Question that is in effect.

and RONR12 4:3 states

Quote

4:3 Neither the making nor the seconding of a motion places it before the assembly; only the chair can do that, by the third step (stating the question). When the chair has stated the question, the motion is pending, that is, “on the floor.” It is then open to debate (if it is a main motion or one of several other debatable parliamentary motions, which are described in later chapters). If the assembly decides to do what a motion proposes, it adopts the motion, or the motion is carried; if the assembly expressly decides against doing what the motion proposes, the motion is lost, or rejected.

So I believe our Electronic Voting bylaws do not allow for subsidiary motions because once the question is on the floor it is immediately up for a vote.

Am I misreading or misinterpreting things here, is the chair, or are we both confused?