Gary Novosielski

Presuming this is a written ballot, then yes, as long as a candidate receives at least one vote,

Yes. But bear in mind that a vacancy refers to an office that was filled, but was then vacated partway through the normal term of office. When a term ends normally, it is then filled by an election, since it is not a mid-term vacancy.

It seems to me that a person who agrees to run is agreeing to serve the entire term, barring unforeseen circumstances. If the candidate cannot commit to that, then the Nominating Committee should find someone else. If they don't, the membership should instruct them to do so.

1. They're your rules, so I assume they would apply. RONR does not have such a rule. 2. Mail in ballots are only permitted if your bylaws provide for them. RONR has suggested methods, which do not include witnesses, but do include more than one teller, and the tellers presumably all observe one another. 3. If a meeting does not have adequate notice, then RONR's procedure is that it cannot be held. If it is, then any business conducted is null and void.

A chair and several members.

Yes, it would be an argument in favor of amending the bylaws to remove that requirement, but as long as it's in there, it must be complied with.

You mean you really are saying that the rules for Suspend the Rules are suspendible?

While we're nitpicking, "comprised of" is always incorrect. To comprise means to be composed of, so the proper sentence should read: 3.01 Membership comprises parents, legal guardians....etc.

It's no worse an interpretation than a half dozen others. This whole situation is a result of poorly drafted bylaws that instead of term limits has year limits. It should be impossible for a term limit to run out mid term, but it is what it is, and if the bylaw says a member is ineligible to serve, but not ineligible to be elected, then I say adopt the least restrictive interpretation. Fortunately it's not up to me, and the organization will have to interpret their own bylaws, incohesive as they are.

No it doesn't. The club tie rule says that it can be suspended. This creates no new rule of order. Any motion to suspend it is handled in the way that suspension of the rules normally occurs as laid out in RONR, and adopting the club tie rule adds nothing to that existing procedure. If a threshold other than the standard for suspension is given, that supersedes the provisions in RONR but nothing else about the mechanics of holding the vote changes. If you are trying to say that the rules in Suspend the Rules (§25) can be suspended, that is a limb out upon which I decline to follow you.

There is no "co-" position loophole. Co-positions are not permitted unless they're explicitly listed as such in your bylaws, and even then are strongly advised against.

Yes. It could more specifically be referred to as an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

I'm not sure what you mean by "that rule". If you mean that the rule I said was being observed is the rule that is being suspended, then we obviously disagree.

No, it does not. And if you ask a fourth time the answer will be the same. Specifically, to answer the question posed in the title: No, bylaws cannot be ignored via general voting.

But it is not the threshold that is being suspended, it is the interfering rule—the one that allows for its own suspension. The particular threshold requirement, whether majority or higher, is of no consequence. An incorrect announcement by a chair of a result is a breach that is subject to a point of order, as long as it is timely, but no longer. If anything, that rule at least is being observed.