The Official RONR Q & A Forums
IPP is ex-officio member of board, is he an OFFICER?
Rev Ed replied to a topic in General Discussion
Unless the By-laws specifically state otherwise, I would say no. The reason I am saying this is because the position is essentially an ex-officio member of the Board. He/she is only on the Board because of the position he/she holds.
Election counting
Nope. The winner must receive more than half of the totaly votes cast. And you may have to have two or more rounds of voting. And, unless the By-laws state otherwise, the lowest candidate is never dropped from the ballot. So if you have 100 votes cast, 51 votes is required to be elected. You could have one round where someone gets 51 votes. But if you don't then you need to have two, three, four rounds of balloting to declare a winner. The person who receives the least number of ballots every round could always tell people that they should not vote for them as he.she is obviously not going to get elected. But the candidate doesn't have to do that.
ByLaw Amendment
Sheila T replied to Sheila T's topic in General Discussion
Richard Brown replied to Sheila T's topic in General Discussion
Thanks, Atul. I thought it was stated more succinctly somewhere in RONR, but I did not have the time to search for it. Thanks for finding it!
Atul Kapur replied to Sheila T's topic in General Discussion
I think it's more succinctly stated on p. 34, lines 8-15: "Until the chair states the question, the maker has the right to modify his motion as he pleases or to withdraw it entirely. After the question has been stated by the chair, the motion becomes the property of the assembly, and then its maker can do neither of these things without the assembly's consent...; but while the motion is pending the assembly can change the wording of the motion by the process of amendment ... before acting upon it." (Italics in original. Bold added for emphasis) The chair's stating the question is the third step in the handling of a motion and that's when ownership goes from the maker to the assembly 1. Member makes the motion 2. Another member seconds the motion 3. Chair states the question on the motion
Restrictions on participation on other boards
Gary Novosielski replied to a topic in General Discussion
My advice was intended for the general case. The exception, as it so often does, proves the rule. In some cases the proof may exceed two digits, depending on the souse.
Josh Martin replied to a topic in General Discussion
All that RONR provides on the subject of "conflict of interest" is as follows: "No member should vote on a question in which he has a direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members of the organization. For example, if a motion proposes that the organization enter into a contract with a commercial firm of which a member of the organization is an officer and from which contract he would derive personal pecuniary profit, the member should abstain from voting on the motion. However, no member can be compelled to refrain from voting in such circumstances." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 407) Nonetheless, the school board and/or the PTA are free to adopt their own rules on this matter in their bylaws if they wish to do so.
Gary Novosielski started following Election counting 17 hours ago
No, that would be called a "plurality" vote. Under the rules of RONR, no one is elected with less than a majority, unless your bylaws say so. In order to achieve a majority, a candidate must have not merely the largest number of votes, but more votes than all the other candidates put together, i.e., a true majority (more than half) of the votes cast for that office. If none of the candidates have a majority, the results are announced so that all voters know the vote counts, and another ballot is held, with no names being dropped (unless they withdraw). Nominations may be reopened between ballots if desired. Eventually, it it hoped, voters will settle on a candidate before food and supplies run out.
Richard Brown started following Previous Meeting Minutes and ByLaw Amendment 18 hours ago
These quotations from the bottom of page 114: After a main motion has been made and before the question has been stated by the chair, any member can quickly rise and, with little or no explanatory comment, informally suggest one or more modifications in the motion, which at this point the maker can accept or reject as he wishes (see pp. 40–41). Application of this method should generally be limited to minor changes about which there is unlikely to be a difference of opinion. After the question has been stated by the chair—although the assembly, and not the maker of the motion, then has control over its wording—the maker can request unanimous consent to modify the motion (see pp. 295–98). If any member then objects, however, the desired modification must be introduced in the form of a motion to Amend, as noted below.
One other question, can you please refer me to the page that says that once a motion is made the assembly "owns" it (so to speak)
Richard Brown replied to a topic in General Discussion
No, but the minutes of the previous meeting should be approved as soon as possible. Memories fade over time and not approving minutes can leave members wondering whether certain motions were or were not adopted. Edited to add: Upon rereading your post, I can't tell which meeting you believe might have the "problem": the meeting for which minutes have not been approved or the following meeting? If you are referring to the meeting for which there are no minutes, the only "problem" is that members may be in doubt as to what was adopted. Lack of minutes has no affect on on the validity of whatever was adopted, it just creates doubt as to exactly what WAS adopted.
Beautiful, thank you!
Guest posted a topic in General Discussion
If the minutes of the previous meeting are not available. Does this create a problem for the preceding meeting?
Hieu H. Huynh started following Election counting 18 hours ago
Hieu H. Huynh replied to a topic in General Discussion
See FAQ #4.
George Mervosh started following Election counting 18 hours ago
George Mervosh replied to a topic in General Discussion
No. Under the rules in RONR, a majority of the votes cast is required to elect someone to office. If that's not achieved on the first ballot be prepared to re-ballot, perhaps multiple times, until someone does reach that threshold.
A simple majority is reguired to pass a vote. When electing officers from a 3 person ballet is it simple the one with the most votes?
If this is the first time you are adopting the Code of Conduct (rather than the bylaws committee proposing amendments to an existing Code) then I would follow the procedure on pages 557-9, "Consideration and adoption of proposed bylaws". The difference is that the final vote required to adopt the Code of Conduct is the vote required to Amend the bylaws, rather than just a majority. Amendments would be allowed. If they are approved, that doesn't mean that the whole thing has to go back. The assembly is free to amend what the bylaws committee proposes.
The 2FP members here find this to be terrible advice.
I seem to have found a thread that is somewhat helpful, 1) The committee chair will read the appendix and make a motion to adopt, 2) the assembly chair will put the question to the assembly, 3) discussion will take place and the member's concern will be answered satisfactorily or, if not satisfied, the member may make a motion to amend 4) if the motion to amend passes then the original motion is withdrawn (correct??) so the Bylaw Committee can go back and make/review the necessary changes OR if the motion does not pass someone may move the previous question and the assembly will vote on the initial motion. Yes??
Gary Novosielski started following Restrictions on participation on other boards 19 hours ago
In general, people who are soused should avoid serving on boards until they sober up.😵
No nominee gets a majority vote
The obligation is not merely to conduct a ballot vote, it is to complete the election. If it takes 158 ballots to do so, then that is the requisite number. If elections are incomplete, then the action required of the chair is to take another ballot, or take some other action to complete the election, such as entertaining a motion to reopen nominations, or to set a time for an adjourned meeting at which balloting will continue. There is no such thing as a motion to close elections. If there is a persistent insufficiency of volunteers to fill critical offices, it might be time for the society to seriously consider taking actions to dissolve the organization.
Tabled Motion
See FAQ No. 12 on the main website regarding the misuse of the motion to lay on the table for more information: https://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#12
Supplementing my answer immediately above, if a motion to "table" until the next meeting was actually adopted, and if the chair desires to treat it as a motion to "lay on the table" rather than as a motion to postpone, then, at the next meeting, a member will have to actually move to take the motion from the table. If it is not taken from the table by the end of that meeting, it dies.
Richard Brown started following Tabled Motion 19 hours ago
It is actually a misuse of the motion to "lay on the table" to "table" something until the next meeting. The proper motion is to postpone the matter until the next meeting. At the next meeting, the item should come up automatically under "unfinished business and general orders". A matter which has been postponed to a future meeting is actually a general order of business for the next meeting and comes up During "unfinished business and general orders". I would suggest that if a motion has been improperly "tabled" until the next meeting rather than postponed until the next meeting, the presiding officer should treat it as if it was a motion to postpone until the next meeting.
Rob Elsman replied to a topic in General Discussion
No rule in RONR requires a motion that lies on the table to be included in an agenda.
© 2017 The Robert's Rules Association Powered by Invision Community