Question?

[msanford33]

1. When should you as a Board go to RONA? For some reason a couple of member want to turn to RONA on every Topic we vote on.

2. If there was a vote and it ended in a tie and the President Tabled it for the next meeting can the president preside?

[Chris Harrison]

1) What is RONA? If you mean RONR then assuming the organization adopted it as their parliamentary authority the Board should be using it for all business that is conducted in their meetings (unless the bylaws say otherwise).

2) With the exception of an election a tie vote would mean the motion is defeated and there is nothing to be "tabled to the next meeting" (which is an improper use of the motion to start off with.

[Tim Wynn]

1. When should you as a Board go to RONA? For some reason a couple of member want to turn to RONA on every Topic we vote on.

2. If there was a vote and it ended in a tie and the President Tabled it for the next meeting can the president preside?

1. I'll assume you're referring to Robert's Rules of Order (RONR). RONR contains the rules for conducting a meeting. The bylaws of an organization need not be bogged down with the specifics of procedure, so it is the common practice to adopt a parliamentary authority, most often RONR, to govern all the details of procedure for a meeting.

2. A tie vote on a main motion defeats the motion. So, the defeated motion cannot be postponed to another meeting ("Table" is the wrong term to use here.) Also, the president does not have the authority to postpone any motion. The assembly would have to do this.

[msanford33]

correct RONR

[Tim Wynn]

correct RONR

At least Chris and I got that one right.

[msanford33]

Sorry the reason it was Tabled was because we were voting on a new Treasurer and we ended in a tie and instead of coming to a decision that night the President tabled it to the next meeting BUT the President preside and appointed a new Treasurer.

[Chris Harrison]

Sorry the reason it was Tabled was because we were voting on a new Treasurer and we ended in a tie and instead of coming to a decision that night the President tabled it to the next meeting BUT the President preside and appointed a new Treasurer.

Well since this was an election the election was incomplete and one option is to postpone the election to the next meeting (as long as you meet at least quarterly). However, the President doesn't have the authority to unilaterally appoint the Treasurer (unless the bylaws grants the President that authority).

[Guest PMJR]

The two members are probably referring to the RONR because of the President not following procedures after tie votes or on other matters during the meeting. If procedures are being followed, then there normally would be no reason to refer to the by-laws or RONR.

[David A Foulkes]

1. When should you as a Board go to RONA? For some reason a couple of member want to turn to RONA on every Topic we vote on.

I'd say quite often, although I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "go to." Depending on how extensive your bylaws are, I'd venture that a considerable portion of your meetings are governed by the rules of parliamentary procedure set forth in RONR. However, it would be hoped that the President and even the entire Board were familiar enough with those rules that they don't have to keep pulling out their books and thumbing through to find the answer to the question "so, what do we do now?" every other minute or two. So, what do you mean by "go to"?

[Trina]

Sorry the reason it was Tabled was because we were voting on a new Treasurer and we ended in a tie and instead of coming to a decision that night the President tabled it to the next meeting BUT the President preside and appointed a new Treasurer.

Sorry, but the sequence of events is not real clear to me (maybe it's just me, in which case I apologize). It seems normal for the President to preside -- was there something unexpected that happened? As for appointing a new Treasurer, did the President announce this at the same meeting, right after 'tabling' the election? Or did this 'appointment' happen at some subsequent meeting? Maybe the President even went and 'appointed' someone between meetings?

It's hard to offer opinions on what went wrong procedurally, without understanding what actually happened...

[msanford33]

Sorry, but the sequence of events is not real clear to me (maybe it's just me, in which case I apologize). It seems normal for the President to preside -- was there something unexpected that happened? As for appointing a new Treasurer, did the President announce this at the same meeting, right after 'tabling' the election? Or did this 'appointment' happen at some subsequent meeting? Maybe the President even went and 'appointed' someone between meetings?

It's hard to offer opinions on what went wrong procedurally, without understanding what actually happened...

The vote was declaired a tie and at that point Tabled to the next meeting. After some research of our unclear By Laws on Proxy voting she throw out the proxy vote and presided with no meeting.

[Trina]

The vote was declaired a tie and at that point Tabled to the next meeting. After some research of our unclear By Laws on Proxy voting she throw out the proxy vote and presided with no meeting.

Do you mean that, in between meetings, the President announced that the proxy vote didn't count, and that one of the candidates was thereby elected? As in, she called or e-mailed people: "After reading the bylaws, I have decided the proxy vote didn't count, and therefore Mr. Jones really was the winner of the election."

Something like that?

[Gary Novosielski]

The two members are probably referring to the RONR because of the President not following procedures after tie votes or on other matters during the meeting. If procedures are being followed, then there normally would be no reason to refer to the by-laws or RONR.

Well, if you never had a reason to refer to the bylaws or to RONR, how could you know that the procedures are being followed?

The bylaws and the parliamentary authority should be referred to as often as necessary to ensure that the rules in them are being followed. The more familiar the parties are with the rules, the less frequently they would need to refer to them, but all business of the society to which those rules apply should be governed by them.

In other words, you don't refer to RONR only when you're in trouble; instead you always follow RONR to stay out of trouble.

[msanford33]

Do you mean that, in between meetings, the President announced that the proxy vote didn't count, and that one of the candidates was thereby elected? As in, she called or e-mailed people: "After reading the bylaws, I have decided the proxy vote didn't count, and therefore Mr. Jones really was the winner of the election."

Something like that?

Correct!!!!

[msanford33]

Well, if you never had a reason to refer to the bylaws or to RONR, how could you know that the procedures are being followed?

The bylaws and the parliamentary authority should be referred to as often as necessary to ensure that the rules in them are being followed. The more familiar the parties are with the rules, the less frequently they would need to refer to them, but all business of the society to which those rules apply should be governed by them.

In other words, you don't refer to RONR only when you're in trouble; instead you always follow RONR to stay out of trouble.

Thank you thats the answer I was looking for

[Trina]

Do you mean that, in between meetings, the President announced that the proxy vote didn't count, and that one of the candidates was thereby elected? As in, she called or e-mailed people: "After reading the bylaws, I have decided the proxy vote didn't count, and therefore Mr. Jones really was the winner of the election."

Something like that?

Correct!!!!

Well, according to RONR, the president has no authority to do that -- the attempted action is meaningless. The election must be completed in a proper meeting. In a meeting, someone could raise a point of order that the proxy vote was improperly counted. Improperly counting an absentee vote is one of those (relatively few) flaws in procedure which would constitute a 'continuing breach' -- that is, an error which is serious enough that it can be challenged by a point of order at any time. See RONR (11th ed.) p. 251 (d) and also p. 263 for details. [see p. 244 in the 10th edition, if that's what you have access to]

After the presiding officer (and ultimately the assembly) rules on the point of order, then you can move on and complete the election properly, during the meeting.

[Guest PMJR]

Well, if you never had a reason to refer to the bylaws or to RONR, how could you know that the procedures are being followed?

The bylaws and the parliamentary authority should be referred to as often as necessary to ensure that the rules in them are being followed. The more familiar the parties are with the rules, the less frequently they would need to refer to them, but all business of the society to which those rules apply should be governed by them.

In other words, you don't refer to RONR only when you're in trouble; instead you always follow RONR to stay out of trouble.

Gary, you have tried to analyze my comments and came to the wrong conclusion. Read the ops comments “For some reason a couple of member want to turn to RONA on every Topic we vote on.” There is simply no reason to refer to the RONR on every topic that is voted on.

Read David A. Foulkes comments that followed mine. Sometimes it is difficult to interpret the individual’s question or comments and I was just giving a general reply. I did not make any comments of referring to the RONR only when you are in trouble. As David stated, “…it would be hoped that the President and even the entire Board were familiar enough….”

I do attend 2-3 meetings a month and we do not refer to the RONR on every topic that is voted on. If we did, then it is time that someone study the by-laws and RONR. We DO go to it if we are faced with circumstances of which we are not familiar with.