U. N. Owen

I have a request to the Secretary for the video / minutes. Once I have it I will transcribe what was announced.

Not quite. Our rules dictate that the delegates are ordered according to the number of votes cast for them, with each ballot being able to include votes up to the total allocation. If there total was 10 possible delegates, than each ballot could include votes for up to 10 candidates. If you receive enough votes to be in the top 10, than you are a delegate. If there is a tie for the last place (or last two places in our situation), than another round of voting, restricted to the candidates in the tie, should have been conducted. Relating our case to the example above, the top 8 vote getters are not in question. Four candidates received enough votes to be qualified for the 9th and 10th slot. Our rules dictate another round of voting. This last bit was missed. Is there a method to open voting to the voting body that originally cast these ballots, so they can break the tie?

I would need to review the record. Once the video is available I can answer you.

At a recent convention, delegates were elected to represent the body at a gathering of sister organizations. There was a tie, and while the convention rules dictate how to break a tie, the tie was not broken since no vote to break the tie was done. This was a mistake and not willfully done. Effectively a 'Opps, we missed that.' What is the appropriate way to solve the issue of something that can only happen at a convention, but didn't happen at a convention due to an error? If it helps, our board is empowered to act on behalf of our members between general meetings. Many thanks.

I think I understand your reasoning. Since the referenced bylaw reduces the procedure of applying the ultimate discipline, therefore the lesser disciplines cannot require a procedure any greater than required for removal. Additionally, should the referenced bylaw increase the voting requirement for removal, but not mention other disciplinary actions, the voting requirement for the other disciplinary actions remain unchanged while the requirement for removal is increased. Do I have the right end of the stick?

I know that we generally try to avoid interpretation of specific bylaws, so I have outlined the bylaw in question below. If you need the word-for-word, I will provided it.

In the event the membership of an organization wishes to discipline a member for offences which happened outside of a meeting or were not attended to in a timely manner at a previous meeting, then the rules outlined in Section 63 are followed unless a bylaw supersedes them. If the bylaws of an organization define the process for removal of a member, but do not define other forms of discipline such as suspension of voting rights or election to positions of trust, would the rules defined in the bylaws for removal apply to lesser disciplines or would the bylaws only apply to the process of removal and require a trial for all other forms of discipline, excluding censure? I find it difficult to imagine that a lesser process can be used for removal, but a full trial would be needed to suspend voting rights. Your guidance is appreciated.

Thank you both. This provides the clarity I needed.

§63 of the 12th edition makes a delineation between offenses conducted during a meeting and outside of a meeting. It appears that the process of a trial is used for offenses outside of a meeting to allow the body to establish what is true and what is not true, since the members would not have first hand knowledge of the offenses in question. In the event of offenses which occurred at a previous meeting of the body of an organization, would it be proper to make a disciplinary motion at a future meeting, or would that require a trial? For example, and assuming there are no bylaws regarding discipline: Two meetings of the same body. Meeting #1 and Meeting #2 four months later. They are separate sessions and not continuations of the same meeting. At meeting #1, a member uses offensive language and hurls insults at another member. No motion to discipline the member is made during meeting #1 and the meeting adjourns with no disciplinary action taken. Four months later, meeting #2 is called to order. During meeting #2, a member asks to be recognized to make a motion to discipline the member for their activity during Meeting #1. ----- Is a motion to discipline the offending member in order during meeting #2? If so, what levels of discipline would be in order? Is a motion to discipline the offending member OUT OF order during meeting #2? If so, will an investigative committee report and formal trial process be required to apply discipline? Thank you.