Joshua Katz Posted January 13, 2018 at 08:30 PM Report Share Posted January 13, 2018 at 08:30 PM 4 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said: No Why not? Or, rather, why isn't the answer "that's a matter of bylaw interpretation," as I thought you said in your previous reply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted January 13, 2018 at 08:44 PM Report Share Posted January 13, 2018 at 08:44 PM 12 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said: Why not? Or, rather, why isn't the answer "that's a matter of bylaw interpretation," as I thought you said in your previous reply. Because there is a difference between a majority vote and a vote of a majority of the members present. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted January 13, 2018 at 08:48 PM Report Share Posted January 13, 2018 at 08:48 PM 3 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said: Because there is a difference between a majority vote and a vote of a majority of the members present. Okay, got it now. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryce Sullivan Posted January 14, 2018 at 11:22 AM Author Report Share Posted January 14, 2018 at 11:22 AM 23 hours ago, jstackpo said: Or more exactly, 11 positions to fill, 30 (or more) candidates, and 300 (!) voters. With those numbers, voice elections (unless there was overwhelming agreement on some candidates) would be dubious at best. Thanks. It will be ballot voting, and I'm only guessing on the number of candidates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryce Sullivan Posted January 14, 2018 at 11:26 AM Author Report Share Posted January 14, 2018 at 11:26 AM 22 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said: Returning to the questions originally asked: 1. I think this rule requiring the vote of a majority of the members present to "decide any question" is a rule in the nature of a rule of order, and therefore (as far as the rules in RONR are concerned) is a rule which can be suspended by a two-thirds vote. Your association will have to decide for itself the question as to whether or not this rule in the bylaws applies to parliamentary motions such as a motion to Suspend the Rules. 2. If only a majority vote was required to elect the 11 committee members, I don't think that there would necessarily be a problem. However, since your rule requires the vote of a majority of the members present, abstentions will make it more difficult. As previously noted, I think that, if the rules in RONR are controlling, this vote requirement in your bylaws can be suspended so as to allow for the election of committee members by either a majority or plurality vote. Thanks for your help. I'm still trying to get my head around all of this, but I trust the experts! With as many potential nominees as we have, it would take many separate ballots (I think) to reach a majority for all 11 candidates. So even though it goes a bit against sense of what seems right, suspending the rules and going with a plurality vote ought to go better (or at least more easily). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 14, 2018 at 03:23 PM Report Share Posted January 14, 2018 at 03:23 PM (edited) 3 hours ago, Bryce Frederick said: With as many potential nominees as we have, it would take many separate ballots (I think) to reach a majority for all 11 candidates. So even though it goes a bit against sense of what seems right, suspending the rules and going with a plurality vote ought to go better (or at least more easily). Hold on a second. I thought it had been made clear that nothing short of a bylaws amendment can reduce the threshold for election to anything below a majority. Suspension of the rules cannot achieve this. Edited January 14, 2018 at 03:24 PM by Gary Novosielski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted January 14, 2018 at 03:36 PM Report Share Posted January 14, 2018 at 03:36 PM Agreed - page 405, lines 2-6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted January 14, 2018 at 03:40 PM Report Share Posted January 14, 2018 at 03:40 PM 13 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said: Hold on a second. I thought it had been made clear that nothing short of a bylaws amendment can reduce the threshold for election to anything below a majority. Suspension of the rules cannot achieve this. 1 minute ago, jstackpo said: Agreed - page 405, lines 2-6 I disagree. We're not dealing here with an election of officers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted January 14, 2018 at 04:04 PM Report Share Posted January 14, 2018 at 04:04 PM Oops, right. This thread has gone on too long to remember all those picky little details. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 14, 2018 at 04:34 PM Report Share Posted January 14, 2018 at 04:34 PM Yeah, c'mon, that was way back on page 1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFS1970 Posted January 14, 2018 at 05:18 PM Report Share Posted January 14, 2018 at 05:18 PM Although likely too late for this year, because it would require a by laws change,, I may have a solution. I was in a political organization that has to send a large number of delegates to a state convention. The number changes every time but is usually around 23. The solution was slates of candidates. There is a candidates committee that assembles one slate, and then any member can propose a slate from the floor. All slates have to be for the full number of delegates. The only odd thing is that an individual candidate can be on multiple slates. I once found myself on two opposing slates, so I knew I was elected either way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryce Sullivan Posted January 14, 2018 at 06:05 PM Author Report Share Posted January 14, 2018 at 06:05 PM 2 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said: I disagree. We're not dealing here with an election of officers. Yes--a committee and not officers. I'm basing my current view that it's okay based Daniel H. Honemann's earlier comments about page 17, lines 19-27 and some other posts. Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintCad Posted January 14, 2018 at 09:08 PM Report Share Posted January 14, 2018 at 09:08 PM On 1/13/2018 at 1:44 PM, Daniel H. Honemann said: Because there is a difference between a majority vote and a vote of a majority of the members present. So being pedantic, wouldn't the motion to suspend the rules only require a majority of those present, not a 2/3 vote? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted January 15, 2018 at 01:20 AM Report Share Posted January 15, 2018 at 01:20 AM 9 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said: Hold on a second. I thought it had been made clear that nothing short of a bylaws amendment can reduce the threshold for election to anything below a majority. Suspension of the rules cannot achieve this. For officers, yes. I think these are members of a committee; it is a different standard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted January 15, 2018 at 01:24 AM Report Share Posted January 15, 2018 at 01:24 AM 4 hours ago, SaintCad said: So being pedantic, wouldn't the motion to suspend the rules only require a majority of those present, not a 2/3 vote? I think that would be correct, unless the bylaws say something differently, i.e. exempts the ability to suspend the rules from the majority of members present requirements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted January 15, 2018 at 02:04 AM Report Share Posted January 15, 2018 at 02:04 AM 4 hours ago, SaintCad said: So being pedantic, wouldn't the motion to suspend the rules only require a majority of those present, not a 2/3 vote? I would tend to think so, but ultimately whether that bylaw applies to parliamentary motions is a matter of bylaw interpretation, I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted January 15, 2018 at 04:49 AM Report Share Posted January 15, 2018 at 04:49 AM 2 hours ago, Joshua Katz said: I would tend to think so, but ultimately whether that bylaw applies to parliamentary motions is a matter of bylaw interpretation, I think. I agree. I personally do not believe that bylaw provision was intended to apply to parliamentary motions, but it isn't my decision to make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted January 15, 2018 at 02:41 PM Report Share Posted January 15, 2018 at 02:41 PM 9 hours ago, Richard Brown said: I agree. I personally do not believe that bylaw provision was intended to apply to parliamentary motions, but it isn't my decision to make. While that might have been the intent that this rule not apply to parliamentary motions, that is the effect. A statement in the bylaws that is clear, e.g., "All motions shall be adopted by a vote of a majority of the members present," does not leave room for interpretation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted January 15, 2018 at 07:21 PM Report Share Posted January 15, 2018 at 07:21 PM 4 hours ago, J. J. said: While that might have been the intent that this rule not apply to parliamentary motions, that is the effect. A statement in the bylaws that is clear, e.g., "All motions shall be adopted by a vote of a majority of the members present," does not leave room for interpretation. The relevant language in these bylaws, we are told, is as follows: "The vote of a majority of the members present in person at any annual or special meeting and entitled to vote thereat shall decide any question brought before such meeting . . ." When this is read in context, it may or may not be entirely clear that it is to apply to parliamentary motions as well as to main motions. As has previously been noted quite a number of times in this thread, those of us here on the Forum who haven't read these bylaws in their entirely, and who know virtually nothing about this organization, are simply not in a position to render an informed and reliable opinion concerning the matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted January 15, 2018 at 07:33 PM Report Share Posted January 15, 2018 at 07:33 PM 1 minute ago, Daniel H. Honemann said: The relevant language in these bylaws, we are told, is as follows: "The vote of a majority of the members present in person at any annual or special meeting and entitled to vote thereat shall decide any question brought before such meeting . . ." When this is read in context, it may or may not be entirely clear that it is to apply to parliamentary motions as well as to main motions. As has previously been noted quite a number of times in this thread, those of us here on the Forum who haven't read these bylaws in their entirely, and who know virtually nothing about this organization, are simply not in a position to render an informed and reliable opinion concerning the matter. My answer deals with the "intent" of the rule, as opposed to the plain meaning. A rule, given as an example, that says, "All motions shall be adopted by a vote of a majority of the members present," and nothing else, means just that, even if the intent was to exempt motions that RONR states require a different standard* (p. 588, ll. 26-28). *which is all of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts