Elections and Point of Order and Request for Information

[Mark Apodaca, PRP]

During the election process, while delegates were voting, some of the delegates raised a point of order and request for information.  For the Office of the President, there was only one candidate.  For the Office of the Vice President, there were two.  It is a simple process and just need to vote.  I see no validity for a PO or RFI.  I believe it was very impropriate.  Your thoughts?

[Joshua Katz]

What was the point of order?

[Mark Apodaca, PRP]

Prior to voting for each position, the candidates met all the requirements.  All the delegates were present and are members of the organization, so those rules were met.  Request for Information, all information about the voting process, the candidates, the voting delegates was available in the delegates manual and website.  

This has been a very challenging process because this conference is through virtual (Zoom).  

I did find one which would have been considered Point of Order where during the voting process, one candidate left the room and the other remained in the room and voted.  The rule was both to leave the room.  I told the nominating committee chair that the rule was broken and the voting process had to start over.  

One more day...

Mark

[Mark Apodaca, PRP]

Joshua,

Point of order was what time is break.  There is an agenda.  I wish the organization gave me an opportunity to give a workshop about parliamentary procedure.  Most do not know or understand parliamentary law and procedures.

Mark

[Joshua Katz]

1 minute ago, Mark Apodaca said:

Point of order was what time is break. 

Clearly, that is not a point of order. The chair should tell the member the point of order is not well taken. I'm not sure what you mean when you ask if raising a point of order is inappropriate, though. It seems to me that it is when the rules are being followed, is appropriate when they are not being followed, and that many cases will fall somewhere in between, where the member isn't sure until he raises the point of order. What am I missing?

[Mark Apodaca, PRP]

That is one of the disadvantages when it comes to virtual conferences.  If you used Zoom, you will see a number of boxes and on the right side you will see chat.  You will see a number of PO or RFI and when they show up on the screen, they are clearly not points of order or request for information.  I hope in the future there will be procedures developed with addressing virtual conferences, but I hope there will never be another one. COVID-19 has changed many things but,  I prefer physical conferences.

Mark

[Atul Kapur]

1 hour ago, Mark Apodaca said:

This has been a very challenging process because this conference is through virtual (Zoom).  

I did find one which would have been considered Point of Order where during the voting process, one candidate left the room and the other remained in the room and voted.  The rule was both to leave the room.  I told the nominating committee chair that the rule was broken and the voting process had to start over.  

I'm not sure what part of this can be blamed on Zoom. RONR (12th ed.) 45:6 is quite clear: "When a vote is being taken, no interruption is permitted from the time that any member has actually voted until all have presumably voted, unless as sometimes occurs in ballot voting, other business is being transacted during voting."

1 hour ago, Mark Apodaca said:

You will see a number of PO or RFI and when they show up on the screen, they are clearly not points of order or request for information.

Happens at physical meetings, too.

[Mark Apodaca, PRP]

Atul,

There were no interruptions during voting so all was well.  We received too many RFI or PO during the debate times. 

Mark 

[Atul Kapur]

6 minutes ago, Mark Apodaca said:

Atul,

There were no interruptions during voting so all was well.  We received too many RFI or PO during the debate times. 

Mark 

but your first post said,

5 hours ago, Mark Apodaca said:

During the election process, while delegates were voting, some of the delegates raised a point of order and request for information. 

 

[Mark Apodaca, PRP]

22 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

but your first post said,

 

Yes, in Zoom, next to all the squares there is an area in the right where people use it for chat.  That is where you would see the PO and RFI during the process.  The President explained that during the voting process there shall be no interruptions per the parliamentarian.  Some of the delegates just continued with it.  A lot of parliamentary training is needed.  I gave three workshops and I recognized their names during the business meeting.  They were great.  I gave training to three states.  Forty-seven more states to go.  A challenge.

[Mark Apodaca, PRP]

Also, the organization's bylaws say under Suspensions:

These bylaws may be suspended for a specific purpose by 4/5 vote of the delegates present and voting.  Two delegates tried to suspend the bylaws three times (1 delegate  once and another delegate twice).  The motions failed all three times.  

They wanted to add an Article and section regarding to elections.  They did not want to make a proposed amendment to the bylaws because they did not want to wait till the next biennial conference.  That article/section about suspensions needs to be removed from the bylaws.

[Mark Apodaca, PRP]

Because their motions failed in today's session, I believe they will try again tomorrow since it will be session IV, the last session.  Cannot make a same motion twice during the same day.

According to today's agenda, the business meeting was supposed to end at 8 PM EST.  During the last hour, there was debate to amend the agenda to 10 PM. That failed then there was debate to start early and extend time in the afternoon.  The debate went on and on until the delegates voted to stay with the current agenda without changes. 

There were no breaks.  The sign language interpreters did not have a break.  The deaf-blind delegates as well as the staff, board and myself had no break.  The meeting went on for 4 hours without any breaks.  

[Atul Kapur]

1 hour ago, Mark Apodaca said:

Yes, in Zoom, next to all the squares there is an area in the right where people use it for chat.  That is where you would see the PO and RFI during the process.  The President explained that during the voting process there shall be no interruptions per the parliamentarian.  Some of the delegates just continued with it.

I don't see the problem; just ignore them during the vote. Same as you would do if someone stood up during a vote and tried to raise a point of order during voting during a physical meeting.

1 hour ago, Mark Apodaca said:

That article/section about suspensions needs to be removed from the bylaws.

Not sure I see the problem with it.

1 hour ago, Mark Apodaca said:

There were no breaks. 

Didn't the agenda have any breaks scheduled?

[Mark Apodaca, PRP]

Breaks were on the agenda.  Two, one hour breaks.  Delegates voted to eliminate the breaks to have more time to debate the next several motions.

[Richard Brown]

13 hours ago, Mark Apodaca said:

That article/section about suspensions needs to be removed from the bylaws.

 

12 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

Not sure I see the problem with it.

Atul, are you saying you don’t see any problem with the provision permitting the bylaws to be suspended by a 4/5 vote or you don’t see any problem with removing the provision?
 

6 hours ago, Mark Apodaca said:

Breaks were on the agenda.  Two, one hour breaks.  Delegates voted to eliminate the breaks to have more time to debate the next several motions.

I’m assuming you understand that the delegates had the right to do that even though it works a hardship on some people, especially participants such as the chair, the secretary, and the parliamentarian who cannot so easily  just simply walk away for a bathroom break the way the delegates might choose to do.

[Mark Apodaca, PRP]

Right.. but unlike many cases, the delegates include some who are deaf-blind and they rely on interpreters.  If the interpreters can only work till 6 PM, following the agenda and some delegates make a motion to extend the session to 8 PM, the interpreters cannot stay for whatever reason.  This will violate the deaf-blind delegates to equal access, fairness, and the right to vote.  In this case, the motion can be considered to be out of order.  Your thoughts?

[Mark Apodaca, PRP]

Yesterday during the third session of the conference (today is the fourth and last session), the election was held.  All positions had one candidate except for the vice presidency.  The current vice president lost his bid to be reelected by a vote of 72 to 58. Majority was 66.  The secretary cast the ballot recording the results in the minutes.  The election closed in the afternoon.  

This morning I learned that a group want to bring back the election and hold the vice presidency election again.  There was no illegal voting.  There were 138 delegates present and 137 voted.  There is no evidence of any illegality in the process.  The results were not even close.  If the results were close, a recount could have been asked for.  Did not happen.

Its over... 

 

[Atul Kapur]

52 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

Atul, are you saying you don’t see any problem with the provision permitting the bylaws to be suspended by a 4/5 vote or you don’t see any problem with removing the provision?

I'm saying that I do not see a problem with the provision that is there in the by-laws. If they want to have the right to suspend portions of their bylaws, they can have it. It's application in certain situations will cause difficulties, but they have the right to do it.

[Richard Brown]

17 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

I'm saying that I do not see a problem with the provision that is there in the by-laws. If they want to have the right to suspend portions of their bylaws, they can have it. It's application in certain situations will cause difficulties, but they have the right to do it.

Thank you for the clarification.  I agree that the society may put just about any provision it wants to in its bylaws, but I'm a bit surprised by your statement that you see no problem with it considering the pretty uniform advice we give on this forum that a bylaw provision permitting unfettered suspension of the bylaws (all the bylaws, not just a particular bylaw provision) is a bad idea.  I do agree that the society has the right to have such a provision in its bylaws. It is the ability to suspend the bylaws in their entirety by a 4/5 vote that concerns me. At least a 4/5 vote requirement is a relatively high threshold, higher than the customary 2/3 vote for suspending rules and lower than the 90 percent requirement that some organizations have for such extraordinary actions. 

I would feel much more comfortable with a provision that permits only certain provisions to be suspended, but it is what it is and the society has the right to have such a provision in its bylaws.

[Mark Apodaca, PRP]

I have a question for you while I am still in session.  A delegate made a motion to suspend the bylaws.  Failed to meet the 4/5 vote so therefore the motion failed.

With that said, another motion to suspend the bylaws cannot be made because you cannot have the same motion during the same session. It does not matter who made the motion. It does not matter what the reason is.  If the motion to suspend the bylaws passed then the delegate can make the motion (specific purpose).

Correct me please.

[Atul Kapur]

First, it is not clear from the description given that the suspension applies to the entirety of the bylaws. Second, I am reassured by the fact that all three attempts to suspend failed. It shows me that the threshold is reasonable and suspension isn't occurring frequently.

And I prefer this provision (suspension) over a no-notice bylaws amendment. A suspension is only for the current meeting, rather than a permanent change.

[Atul Kapur]

3 minutes ago, Mark Apodaca said:

I have a question for you while I am still in session.  A delegate made a motion to suspend the bylaws.  Failed to meet the 4/5 vote so therefore the motion failed.

With that said, another motion to suspend the bylaws cannot be made because you cannot have the same motion during the same session. It does not matter who made the motion. It does not matter what the reason is.  If the motion to suspend the bylaws passed then the delegate can make the motion (specific purpose).

Correct me please.

Okay, here's the correction. "If a motion to suspend the rules is voted down, it cannot be renewed by moving to suspend the rules for the same purpose at the same meeting, unless unanimous consent is given." RONR (12th ed.) 25:6

If a motion to suspend the rules to do action X fails, it is still in order to move to suspend the rules to do action Y. At least that's what RONR says, and that principle would still apply to your bylaws suspension, unless your bylaws say otherwise.

 

[Mark Apodaca, PRP]

Perfect... 

The delegate tried to get the bylaws suspended.  The purpose was the same but tried to twist words to make it look different.

[Atul Kapur]

2 minutes ago, Mark Apodaca said:

Perfect... 

The delegate tried to get the bylaws suspended.  The purpose was the same but tried to twist words to make it look different.

That's a determination to be made by the Chair, subject to Appeal.

[Mark Apodaca, PRP]

Thank you..

Atul, I am under the impression that you are a medical doctor and came to wonder how you manage your time when it comes to your profession and being a parliamentarian.  I find it challenging and amazing myself.  

Mark