jstackpo

A (possible) heads up:  Years and years ago (when there were wolves in Wales) and RONR/11 was brand new, there was a brief shining moment when the book was available on Kindle from Amazon. I snagged a copy, but alas no more. 

So when RONR/12 arrives (a year or two?), watch for the possibility -- who knows?

1 minute ago, Guest Invecta3 said:

What if bylaws mandate minimum of 5 and max of 7 directors

A "range" of positions is a quandary as to what it means or how to deal with it.  RONR doesn't say.  You will have to have the association interpret the bylaws - see p. 588. The usual method is to raise an appropriate point of order, majority decides any appeal of the chair's ruling - then amend the bylaws to set a fixed number.

Do your bylaws authorize the calling of a special meeting in the first place?  Did you follow the instructions in that authorization (if any)?

The only literal vote-counting rule in RONR is that the President appoints the tellers, p. 414.  I would presume that they would count the proxy votes -- actually these appear to be simple absentee ballots, p. 423, unless your proxy rules (which have to be your rules) specify something different.

Are the tellers producing a full teller's report as on page 417?  That might give you some clues as to what is happening. 

With a 2/3 vote you could suspend the rule that authorized the president to appoint tellers, and appoint a new (trustworthy-?) set.  Then move for a recount - page 419.

Have you evidence of fraud.  See p. 444.

In  the order you asked (sorta)...

The candidates with majorities are elected - congratulate them.

Run another election for the remaining unfilled positions with ALL the remaining candidates on the ballot - no drop-offs.

Still tied? Or not enough majority winners? Try again.  If that gets you nowhere, open the floor for additional nominations and run yet another election. Again with all (remaining) candidate (unless one or more drop out of their own free will).

If you announce all the intermediate results as you go along, including vote counts -- as you should anyway (see page 417) -- the voters (and the candidates) will get the message and adjust their preferences (unless they are all a bunch of stick-in-the-muds).

Oops!

2 hours ago, Guest Susan said:

looked through Robert's Rules of Order

Try looking here:  p. 433, line 29.

But check this in your bylaws:  If the presidential office goes vacant (he resigns, or anything else happens), then there may be provisions in the bylaws for filling that vacancy, and it's likely the provision defaults to the RONR standard of the vice-president taking the office and BECOMING the president automatically.  If true that would prevent the president from "running" for some election to "finish his term".  Let the president beware that he is not hoist by his own petard.

Yes, but...  commonly committees (of boards or of assemblies) don't keep minutes in the first place.  See page 500.  The principal document that a committee produces is its report, or reports.  That is what gets voted on.

No.  Voting (on anything) is a right restricted to membership.

With the Board's permission, yes.  2/3 vote to allow required if the non-board-member wishes to speak to a pending motion.

Entirety?  If (even) one member requests, yes. (p. 33 & 39) But otherwise the maker could just move the motion as written and distributed, identifying it by title or some such.  (That's in case more than one long written motion has been distributed.)

I'll rool with that.

And that "official role" is drawn up by the Credentials Committee and presented for adoption to the assembled delegates (sort of a "by your own bootstraps" operation) as one of the first pieces of business at the convention. See Chapter XIX.

Warning:  Going into Soapbox mode...

Guest Roy's compendium of problems is a fine example of jumping into e-voting, and e-meetings in general, without thinking through how Internet "meetings" differ from regular in person meetings and what to do about it, i.e. what rules to adopt beforehand  There is no free lunch.

Here is a possible set of suggestions and rules...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/g8w31eocwqx067h/E-Meetings 2012.docx?dl=0

and here...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/453cfqxcmt9cbuk/E-Meetings in Real World 2012.docx?dl=0

Note that these rules depart as little as possible from the "standard" meeting rules in RONR -- RONR remains the basis for "good" meetings. 

End Soapbox.

53 minutes ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

To me it just doesn't seem possible that under the rules in RONR there could be a continuation of the same board meeting or session after a periodic change in board membership has occurred.

Mais pourquoi pas?

If a membership meeting can switch officers, perhaps sequentially, as election results are announced by the (soon to be past) chairman, or the new one, for lesser offices, and then continue the same meeting with more business, why couldn't the board, although "effectively" (whatever that means)  a new board  (p. 489), continue business right after some or all of its members are swapped out for new ones? 

Are the offices actually vacant or something, right now?

Do you have a board or directors who, depending on bylaws, may be authorized to fill office vacancies?

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

has had a sudden change of heart

Or voted strategically first time around,  as suggested.

That was the third option...

In "pure" RONR-land rules, there would be no problem with someone on the "new board" (actually the SAME board but with some, or all, new members) moving to rescind the previously adopted motion to spend those big bucks.  See page 305ff.

HOWEVER (1 of 2 "howevers"):  since it won't be possible for the new board members to give prior notice, it will require a 2/3 vote to rescind the expenditure motion, or a majority of the entire membership of the board.  This could be a stopper. Or not.

HOWEVER (#2): Many municipal board rules (which go beyond and supersede RONR's rules) require some sort of public previous notice for all business to be brought up at a board meeting.  Do yours?  Does the rule apply?  Ask your town's lawyer.  We can't answer that one since it isn't RONR's rule.

A third option with all sorts of contingencies:  IF a particular "old board" member is continuing service on the "new board" (he got re-elected) AND he was opposed to the expenditure, AND he was willing to vote for the expense (which might get him in trouble with his constituents!) during the first portion of the board meeting, he could THEN, when the new members take over, move to reconsider (p. 315ff) the earlier vote.  Adopting reconsider, followed by presumably a vote to defeat (not "rescind) the expenditure vote, could all be done by majority votes.  Again, check with your lawyer as to possible notice requirements.

Adopting a decision to "support" some activity (or encourage, or whatever) is still very much "doing something", so offer a motion like any other to do so. Don't be afraid of the formal language "Mr. Chairman, I move that...".  It does wonders in terms of focusing attention and getting the result you would like.

Nope.  "Member at Large" isn't in the (pretty good) index.   Nor does a text search find it.

The term is common enough in bylaws but it purely a creature of those bylaws. Any "forbade this classification" rule would have to be in the bylaws, as well.

Keep on studying!  You are doing fine, so far.

15 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

I believe it does exist somewhere in the book

Betchawon't find it!

Actually, FWIMBW, I have never been able to find the citation for majority permission to speak (non-debate) in the book. Any idea where?

If it is not in debate on a motion, yes, if he/she has majority vote approval.

If it is in debate, a 2/3 vote is required to give permission.

Yes.