Weldon Merritt

If it were up to me, I would want to commend her for being gutsy enough to do it.😁

Sorry, George. I somehow overlooked the note in your signature. But I suppose it doesn't hurt to emphasize the point.

This is true if the rules in RONR are the only ones that apply. But if you are talking about a governmental entity of some sort, there may be (and probably are) open meeting statutes that restrict what executive sessions can be used for. In that case, you would need to consult the applicable statute,

No, thank you. I have no desire to read and interpret your bylaws on a free forum. It is the organization that needs to interpret them, and then amend the bylaws to remove any ambiguity. You will find some principles of interpretation at RONR (12th ed.) 56:68. Once the organization gets it figured out, I also recommend amending the bylaws to have the nomination committee elected by the membership rather than appointed by the president, and to remove the president's ex-officio membership from the committee. Certainly, your bylaws can vary from RONR; but in this instance, I think RONR has the better rule.

The bylaws can properly be interpreted only as a whole. If I read only the part that says "no one on the nomination committee" (emphasis added), I would think that it applies to all members, regardless of how they became members and regardless of whether they actively participate. But there very well may be other provisions in the bylaws that would lead to a different interpretation.

That's a matter of bylaws interpretation, which only your organization can properly do. But if you followed the RONR recommendations for a Nominating Committee, the issue wouldn't even arise. First of all, RONR says that the president should have nothing at all to do with the Nomination Committee, neither appointing it nor serving as a member. And RCNO also says that serving on the committee doesn't not disqualify a member from being nominated for office. But your bylaws provide otherwise, so you are stuck with their provisions until you can change them.

I concur, assuming any motion would be necessary. But what is the default? In other words, what would happen if no motion at all was adopted? If the default is that members are inducted only if a motion to do so is adopted, then the desired result (no induction) would be accomplished by simply not adopting any motion.

That's what I was trying to convey, but Dr. Kapur did it much more clearly.

It depends on how much authority the bylaws delegate to the board. Some boards are delegated the power and some are not.

Why would you think someone could not nominate self-nominate. Instead of asking for a rule that allows it, you might try asking of there is a rule that prohibits it. (The answer is "no.")

Not so far as RONR is concerned. BTW, you don't have a board member; the board does. This may seem like a petty distinction, but I think it's actually important. Too many presidents seem to think they have more power and prestige than they actually do, and this sort of sloppy language contributes to that illusion.

If there is nothing about email motions in your bylaws, then they are not allowed. The fact that others have been approved is irrelevant. If those "motions" were adopted other than at a regular or properly called special meeting, they are null and void. (This assumes that there is no applicable statute that allows the procedure. If there is, then that statute will control.) But since you say you have regular month meetings, just make you motion at one of those meetings. Your motion could either address the issue directly, or could be to set a special meeting to address the issue (assuming that the bylaws allow for special meetings).

A recess is defined in RONR 20:1 as "a short intermission in the assembly's proceedings, commonly of only a few minutes, which does not close the meeting and after which business will immediately be resumed at exactly the point where it was interrupted." So I would say the answer to your question is no. However, you could achieve much the same result by first adopting a motion to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn, setting an adjourned meeting for several days or weeks later (as long as it is before the next regular meeting and within a quarterly time interval), and then adjourning the current meeting.

Do your bylaws allow a motion to be made and seconded by email? Does the board have regularly scheduled meetings?

"Members in good standing are those whose rights as members of the assembly are not under suspension as a consequence of disciplinary proceedings or by operation of some specific provision in the bylaws." RONR (12the ed.) 1:13n3. And yes, unless it would violate some provision of the bylaws, a member may indeed be elected to office the same day they join. In fact, even a non-member may be elected to office unless the bylaws require that officers be members.

I take it that you mean that the bylaws say that floor nominations may be made at the September meeting. But my question is, do they specify that they may be made only at that meeting. In other words, to they say something like, "Nominations from the floor may be made at the September meeting," or is it, "Nominations from the floor may be made only at the September meeting"? The wording makes a difference.

Do your bylaws contain their own disciplinary provisions? If so, your answer should be found there. If not (as I suspect is the case or you probably wouldn't be asking the question), then the rules in Chapter XX of RONR apply. And in that case, an individual member may not "press charges" against another member. See RONR (12th ed.) 63:11. The most that an individual member may do is to move that an investigating committee be appointed to look into any possible offenses by the other member. The complete disciplinary procedures in RONR are too complicated to easily summarize here, so I suggest you get a copy of RONR and study Chapter XX very carefully before proceeding.

Do your bylaws specifically say that nominations from the floor are allowed only at the September meeting? If not, then you still must call for them at the November meeting.

Only if the church's bylaws (or equivalent governing document by another name) allow it.

Mr. Elsman is correct, assuming your bylaws don't provide for voting by email. If you bylaws do provide for voting by email, I would say the vote is valid, but the motion failed because it did not obtain a majority of the votes cast.

Invent a time machine, then go back to before the motion was made and don't adopt it.😁 Seriously, I recommend that you first rescind the motion and require the officers to begin paying dues until you can amend the bylaws. Then if you still want to be able to have the officers not pay dues, amend the bylaws at the first opportunity to do so, and wither redefine "complimentary membership," or add a new non-dues category to cover the officers. And to cover all bases, adopt a motion ratifying any actions taken by the de facto officers in the meantime. Since, according to your bylaws, the de facto officers should not have been voting while they held complimentary membership, It could be that some of the motions adopted in the meantime might be null and void, if the de facto officers voted and their cotes were enough to affect the result. But unless you have a record of the number of votes on each side, I think it is too late to do anything about that. Just be more careful in the future, and pay closer attention to your bylaws. But be on the lookout for other responses. Some of my colleagues may have different, and quite possibly, better advice.

Guest Sluggo, please post your question as a new topic. This thread is over two years old!

They can do that only as long as the members allow them to get by with it. The member have the ultimate authority; they just need to have the will to exercise it. You cam nominate and vote for officers who will follow the assembly's instructions/ You can censure those who do not. And ultimately, you can remove recalcitrant officers if necessary.

I concur with Mr. Lages. And if the chair rules that the projects must be voted on together, be prepared to appeal the ruling of the chair. See RONR 24:1-13.

No, it doesn't. It is the appropriate bylaws provision that permits them. RONR merely recognizes that some organizations may wish to have them, and what they need to do to authorize them. But since the bylaws always trump the parliamentary authority, the bylaws could authorize electronic meetings even if RONR were completely silent about them. (Unless, of course, an applicable statute prohibited them, which would be unlikely.)