Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

How to best approach a special vote requirement & mail ballot


Sean Hunt

Recommended Posts

Per RONR, business cannot be brought up if it cannot legally be adopted, even if it is otherwise legal business. The particular example I'm thinking about is that of motions that require a majority of the membership - you cannot bring them up at a meeting unless a majority of the membership is present, since the assembly would be wasting its time due to its inability to actually decide affirmatively on the question.

However, it is in fact possible for such a motion to get adopted by mail ballot, since it will include all members. If a member wanted to bring up such an issue with the intent of sending it to mail ballot, would his only recourse be to Suspend the Rules and pre-approve the vote by mail ballot and allow debate, or could it be done with a weaker motion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Per RONR, business cannot be brought up if it cannot legally be adopted, even if it is otherwise legal business. The particular example I'm thinking about is that of motions that require a majority of the membership - you cannot bring them up at a meeting unless a majority of the membership is present, since the assembly would be wasting its time due to its inability to actually decide affirmatively on the question.

However, it is in fact possible for such a motion to get adopted by mail ballot, since it will include all members. If a member wanted to bring up such an issue with the intent of sending it to mail ballot, would his only recourse be to Suspend the Rules and pre-approve the vote by mail ballot and allow debate, or could it be done with a weaker motion?

Absentee voting is not permitted except as provided for in the bylaws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, sorry. For some reason I was thinking of a situation where bylaws authorize mail ballots at the whim of the assembly.

In retrospect, I'm not sure if this ought to count as a bylaws question - while vote by mail is covered by RONR, the details of an optional vote-by mail aren't.

In short, today was a bad day for me here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Per RONR, business cannot be brought up if it cannot legally be adopted, even if it is otherwise legal business. The particular example I'm thinking about is that of motions that require a majority of the membership - you cannot bring them up at a meeting unless a majority of the membership is present, since the assembly would be wasting its time due to its inability to actually decide affirmatively on the question.

However, it is in fact possible for such a motion to get adopted by mail ballot, since it will include all members. If a member wanted to bring up such an issue with the intent of sending it to mail ballot, would his only recourse be to Suspend the Rules and pre-approve the vote by mail ballot and allow debate, or could it be done with a weaker motion?

As noted, the question asked here cannot be answered without knowledge of the exact language in the governing documents (and supporting rules, if any) that expressly authorizes voting by mail, and even then the answer will not be clear if this language is unclear.

However, I am curious as to whether or not anyone doubts the premise contained in the first paragraph, which is that “you cannot bring them [motions that require the vote of a majority of the entire membership for their adoption] up at a meeting unless a majority of the membership is present, since the assembly would be wasting its time due to its inability to actually decide affirmatively on the question.”

During the course of two recent meetings of the Maryland Lawyer’s Unit of NAP, I presented a program based upon a number of questions, one of which was the following:

“At a recent meeting of the membership of a society which has a total of 100 members, there were 30 members present (20 members constitute a quorum). When a member moved to rescind a previously adopted special rule of order, the chairman ruled that, since no previous notice had been given (which was true), the motion was not in order because a majority of the entire membership was not present. Was this ruling correct?”

As I recall, no one expressed any disagreement with the chair’s ruling; it was considered to be correct based primarily upon the rationale perceived to be behind the rule found in RONR (10th ed.), on page 297, lines 13-22, and page 576, lines 23-27.

Does anyone think that the answer to this specific question is no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As noted, the question asked here cannot be answered without knowledge of the exact language in the governing documents (and supporting rules, if any) that expressly authorizes voting by mail, and even then the answer will not be clear if this language is unclear.

However, I am curious as to whether or not anyone doubts the premise contained in the first paragraph, which is that “you cannot bring them [motions that require the vote of a majority of the entire membership for their adoption] up at a meeting unless a majority of the membership is present, since the assembly would be wasting its time due to its inability to actually decide affirmatively on the question.”

During the course of two recent meetings of the Maryland Lawyer’s Unit of NAP, I presented a program based upon a number of questions, one of which was the following:

“At a recent meeting of the membership of a society which has a total of 100 members, there were 30 members present (20 members constitute a quorum). When a member moved to rescind a previously adopted special rule of order, the chairman ruled that, since no previous notice had been given (which was true), the motion was not in order because a majority of the entire membership was not present. Was this ruling correct?”

As I recall, no one expressed any disagreement with the chair’s ruling; it was considered to be correct based primarily upon the rationale perceived to be behind the rule found in RONR (10th ed.), on page 297, lines 13-22, and page 576, lines 23-27.

Does anyone think that the answer to this specific question is no?

No disagreement from me. This sounds like a great program for a unit. I love those kind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As noted, the question asked here cannot be answered without knowledge of the exact language in the governing documents (and supporting rules, if any) that expressly authorizes voting by mail, and even then the answer will not be clear if this language is unclear.

However, I am curious as to whether or not anyone doubts the premise contained in the first paragraph, which is that “you cannot bring them [motions that require the vote of a majority of the entire membership for their adoption] up at a meeting unless a majority of the membership is present, since the assembly would be wasting its time due to its inability to actually decide affirmatively on the question.”

During the course of two recent meetings of the Maryland Lawyer’s Unit of NAP, I presented a program based upon a number of questions, one of which was the following:

“At a recent meeting of the membership of a society which has a total of 100 members, there were 30 members present (20 members constitute a quorum). When a member moved to rescind a previously adopted special rule of order, the chairman ruled that, since no previous notice had been given (which was true), the motion was not in order because a majority of the entire membership was not present. Was this ruling correct?”

As I recall, no one expressed any disagreement with the chair’s ruling; it was considered to be correct based primarily upon the rationale perceived to be behind the rule found in RONR (10th ed.), on page 297, lines 13-22, and page 576, lines 23-27.

Does anyone think that the answer to this specific question is no?

In the scenario you present the ruling was correct. I can see other scenarios with different facts where the answer might be different. Which may be why you italicized "specific" :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

During the course of two recent meetings of the Maryland Lawyer’s Unit of NAP, I presented a program based upon a number of questions, one of which was the following:

“At a recent meeting of the membership of a society which has a total of 100 members, there were 30 members present (20 members constitute a quorum). When a member moved to rescind a previously adopted special rule of order, the chairman ruled that, since no previous notice had been given (which was true), the motion was not in order because a majority of the entire membership was not present. Was this ruling correct?”

As I recall, no one expressed any disagreement with the chair’s ruling; it was considered to be correct based primarily upon the rationale perceived to be behind the rule found in RONR (10th ed.), on page 297, lines 13-22, and page 576, lines 23-27.

Does anyone think that the answer to this specific question is no?

I thought lawyers are trained not to concede anything just because the facts make it appear reasonable. :-)

See, you may not have informed them of it, but really the situation was this: In this organization, there is a large group of members -- say, 55 in total -- who frequently come very late to the meetings, only 10 of whom are present at the time this motion is offered. And the special rule proposed to be rescinded is that "The motion to Reconsider shall require a three-fourths vote."

Some of the group of 20 "on-timers" who are present have gotten wind that the "latecomers" are going to make this motion to rescind, with no notice having been given, once they have secured the required attendance. To teach the latecomers a lesson, the on-timers therefore have offered this motion to rescind so that it can promptly be rejected (after the Previous Question is ordered, if anyone tries to prolong the debate) without being able to be brought up again at this meeting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought lawyers are trained not to concede anything just because the facts make it appear reasonable. :-)

Unfortunately, unlike the situation which existed when I had the privilege and pleasure of creating this Unit, substantially less than half of its members now are lawyers. NAP insisted that we change the Unit's bylaws to permit any NAP member to join. It was all downhill after that.

So how about a straight answer to the question? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, unlike the situation which existed when I had the privilege and pleasure of creating this Unit, substantially less than half of its members now are lawyers. NAP insisted that we change the Unit's bylaws to permit any NAP member to join. It was all downhill after that.

So how about a straight answer to the question? :)

There is no clear-cut answer, and a proper ruling will depend on the nature of the assembly. If, as in most ordinary societies, the chair's rulings are guided by common sense in tricky situations, the chair's ruling is not incorrect. If there is a history of more tolerance for parliamentary maneuvering under a strict interpretation of the rules, however, I don't believe the chair has a solid basis for his ruling -- unless the motion is obviously dilatory, which it would not be under the additional facts I presented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see the two of you, sitting in the back seat, fingers pointed at and only a whisper away from each other, chanting in unison "I'm not touching you... I'm not touching you...."

Just sayin'....

I have no idea what you're "just saying'...."

I'm saying that the chairman's ruling is not strictly in accordance with the rules, but it makes a whole lot of sense and will be the proper ruling in most cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea what you're "just saying'...."

I'm saying that the chairman's ruling is not strictly in accordance with the rules, but it makes a whole lot of sense and will be the proper ruling in most cases.

Yeah, well, Mr. Foulkes' ruminations can be annoying at times, but we've come to live with them. B)

Thanks for the thoughtful response. Just to be clear, however, may I ask if you think that proper application of the rule in RONR relating to subsidiary motions to amend (as stated on pp. 297 and 576) also depends upon circumstances, or upon the nature of the assembly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, well, Mr. Foulkes' ruminations can be annoying at times, but we've come to live with them. B)

Thanks for the thoughtful response. Just to be clear, however, may I ask if you think that proper application of the rule in RONR relating to subsidiary motions to amend (as stated on pp. 297 and 576) also depends upon circumstances, or upon the nature of the assembly?

No. There is no license to propose an amendment that would change a motion that could be adopted into one that could not be adopted, because this is tantamount to a motion to Postpone Indefinitely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, unlike the situation which existed when I had the privilege and pleasure of creating this Unit, substantially less than half of its members now are lawyers. NAP insisted that we change the Unit's bylaws to permit any NAP member to join. It was all downhill after that.

They let you keep the name, though, huh? Why not change it to "Maryland Olympic Gold Medal Winners Unit." ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As noted, the question asked here cannot be answered without knowledge of the exact language in the governing documents (and supporting rules, if any) that expressly authorizes voting by mail, and even then the answer will not be clear if this language is unclear.

However, I am curious as to whether or not anyone doubts the premise contained in the first paragraph, which is that “you cannot bring them [motions that require the vote of a majority of the entire membership for their adoption] up at a meeting unless a majority of the membership is present, since the assembly would be wasting its time due to its inability to actually decide affirmatively on the question.”

During the course of two recent meetings of the Maryland Lawyer’s Unit of NAP, I presented a program based upon a number of questions, one of which was the following:

“At a recent meeting of the membership of a society which has a total of 100 members, there were 30 members present (20 members constitute a quorum). When a member moved to rescind a previously adopted special rule of order, the chairman ruled that, since no previous notice had been given (which was true), the motion was not in order because a majority of the entire membership was not present. Was this ruling correct?”

As I recall, no one expressed any disagreement with the chair’s ruling; it was considered to be correct based primarily upon the rationale perceived to be behind the rule found in RONR (10th ed.), on page 297, lines 13-22, and page 576, lines 23-27.

Does anyone think that the answer to this specific question is no?

I agree with the ruling of the chair. The chair may not state the question on a motion which does not have a rational, affirmative side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

During the course of two recent meetings of the Maryland Lawyer’s Unit of NAP,

If that's actually the name (and the correct placement of the apostrophe), I'd say you only need one Lawyer. ;)

Does anyone think that the answer to this specific question is no?

I wonder what kind of parliamentary maneuvering Shmuel has in mind and why the same effect couldn't be accomplished without making a motion that cannot be adopted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll asked the followup. Later in the meeting, more than an MEM show up. Can the motion be renewed?

If it was rejected for lack of a majority of the membership, sure. The assembly never decided on it. It would be quite absurd if this brought the motion out of reach of the assembly for the session, especially if this is a multiple-meeting session and proper notice could be given to allow the motion to be brought up at the next meeting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They let you keep the name, though, huh? Why not change it to "Maryland Olympic Gold Medal Winners Unit." ;)

Actually, that comment of mine in post #10 was just an aside in response to Mr. Gerber, and not meant to be taken seriously. I really don't know how many of the Unit's current membership are lawyers (and there is no apostrophe in its name). Sorry about that. I'll have to learn to stay on topic. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll asked the followup. Later in the meeting, more than an MEM show up. Can the motion be renewed?

I assume J.J. is asking this question in relation to Shmuel's scenario, and based upon what Shmuel posted (post #9), he (Shmuel) apparently believes that the answer is "no" (we will need to wait until this evening or tomorrow for a fuller response from him).

However, I am inclined to agree with scshunt that, if a majority of the entire membership is not present when a question requiring the vote of a majority of the entire membership for its adoption is put to a vote, the assembly is not being called upon to make a decision, and it is making no decision. It lacks the capacity to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume J.J. is asking this question in relation to Shmuel's scenario, and based upon what Shmuel posted (post #9), he (Shmuel) apparently believes that the answer is "no" (we will need to wait until this evening or tomorrow for a fuller response from him).

However, I am inclined to agree with scshunt that, if a majority of the entire membership is not present when a question requiring the vote of a majority of the entire membership for its adoption is put to a vote, the assembly is not being called upon to make a decision, and it is making no decision. It lacks the capacity to do so.

That is my question. I can see a situation where an MEM will appear, disappear and reappear during a meeting. The MEM could disappear while the question is pending (but not decided) as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is my question. I can see a situation where an MEM will appear, disappear and reappear during a meeting. The MEM could disappear while the question is pending (but not decided) as well.

This is certainly true, but I'm inclined to think that the possibility that additional members may show up has no bearing on the question as to the correctness of the chair's ruling in the circumstances I described in post #6.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...