jstackpo

Since no point of order was raised at the time of the ruling (and can't be until the next meeting), the vote stands. You are free to raise a point -- this looks like a "continuing breach", p. 251 -- or simply move to rescind the previously adopted motion (if you didn't like it), or do nothing if you are happy with the result. You don't "re-vote" on the original motion -- that is over and done with.

Acceptance, and the option to decline: page 444, RONR. The unfilled positions are NOT "vacancies" in the sense of someone resigning from a position to which he was elected. Incomplete elections (same RONR page) should be filled (eventually) by your regular nomination and election process. But check your rules for something that supersedes RONR. Good luck!

Not unless it was a roll call vote, and then you record ALL the votes.

Without access to your bylaws and your adopted election rules, I can't say for sure. But presuming your description captures the relevant details (and there is nothing left out, like state law provisions) I'd say sure, A was elected. Unanimously, at that. And you still have an incomplete election since the 7th position was not filled. When you tell A of his good fortune, he will be free to decline the office, if he/she does then you will be back to two positions yet to be filled.

Yessir!

Perhaps Rev Ed made a Freudian slip, reflecting on the political situation to his South.

Or you could say "... as printed and distributed" .

Right! Get a parliamentarian..... Contact either (or both) the ... National Association of Parliamentarians 213 South Main St. Independence, MO 64050-3850 Phone: 888-627-2929 Fax: 816-833-3893; e-mail: hq@NAP2.org <<www.parliamentarians.org>> or American Institute of Parliamentarians 618 Church Street, Ste 220 Nashville, TN 37219 phone: 888-664-0428 e-mail: aip@aipparl.org << www.aipparl.org >> for a reference or information. Both organizations offer training and contacts with local parliamentarians.

I'm afraid your belief doesn't comport with RONR's rules. If you have a specific question, please ask it as a "Start New Topic" on the "General Discussion" page, here.

To what end?

Seems to me that sending notification is still a "duty of officers in that connection", even though you have handed off the duty to another officer. Thus special rule of order.

Yeah, but if the Sec didn't send out the notice nobody (or only those in the know) would show up for the meeting. That would surely have an effect on "the orderly transaction of business in meetings" in that there might not be any business at all. Or a lot of ill feelings on the part of the folks who did show up (in the snowstorm) and then had to go home right away.

No fair ganging up on us highly educated folks, you proles. Besides I an a Mac person so "PC" is a strange exotic foreign language to me.

You bet it does: page 251, subparagraph a).

Nothing in RONR would prevent the committees doing it on their own, but it is not uncommon for bylaws to have an "assembly must initiate the request" requirement. Check yours.

In less fractious times, "self-nominating" used to be called "volunteering" -- sounds much nicer.

Click on the little envelope icon, upper right, top of the page.

There is no page XX, although there is a page xx. Did you get NO classical education? Can you not distinguish UPPER CASE from lower case? After a good nights sleep, I can replace my unknown page number ("XX") with 17, lines 13-18 as the location where RONR notes that placing an order of business in the body of the bylaws is "less desirable" than placing it in a set of stand-alone "Special Rules of Order". Or don't specify it anywhere and leave the order of business in RONR's tender care. Which is where it belongs.

Uh oh, downloaded version of WHAT? To my knowledge (unless things have changed recently) there is no "downloadable" version of RONR 11th edition available on the Internet. There is a CD version (PC only) available here -- is that what you ordered? If you ordered some other book with a similar name, try to get your money back, and get the real thing in (paper) hard copy. The page references (and the content) won't (completely) match what you see here in "other" books. When you do get the right book, you will see on page [XX - I can't spot it at this hour of the night!] that RONR recommends that you do NOT put an order of business in the bylaws, but rely on the rules found in the book. This gives you more flexibility for special cases and can avoid confusion and arguments.

If, as described in the original posting (OP), the person who made the motion had the floor and was debating, he could decline to be interrupted (RONR, p. 295) mainly, I suppose, because the additional tine for a question and answer would come out of his debate time allotment. And, as Dan noted, there is no rule requiring an answer be given. Other than the interruption business, there is no (Miranda) rule giving a member the "right" to remain silent either. (His words might be used against him!)

Yeah... but suppose not all the members are attending the "event".

No, after debate gets under way, it is too late. See RONR, p. 250. Exceptions: motions that can lead to, or are continuing breaches of particular rules -- examples listed on p. 251 -- can be ruled out of order any time later, even years. Or after debate gets under way.

The president presides even though he/she may have been nominated for election to an office, including a second (?) term. RONR, p. 451, line 35 - p. 452.

Not in RONR, but your bylaws could introduce such a rule (or any rule you like) no matter how foolish it might be.

Other than the two "conflicted" members resigning from their nonprofit boards, I can't think of any. "Conflict of interest" is not defined in RONR - it would have to be defined in your bylaws, along with any consequences. Is it?