Weldon Merritt

Those certainly are valid questions. But regardless of the answers to those questions, that fact remains that MSparks had no rights at the meeting except as may have been granted by the board's rules. That's not to say that I believe the board should have allowed the letter to be read, or to have it attached to the minutes (if they did). But any objection would have to have been voiced by a board member.

Only if the school board's own rules give you that right. So far as RONR is concerned, as a non-board member, you have no rights at all with regard to the board meeting.

Nor do I.

Asked and answered. See Mr. Elsman's response.

Actually, on further reflections, I think you probably are right about that. And I certainly agree with that. In fact, I think that even if the rule were placed in the bylaws, it could be suspended, since it clearly is a rule of order.

Or just having members writ in the name of the new nominee on the previously prepared ballots.

I had forgotten about that post. Very good point. There's usually a good reason for the rules in RONR, and an organization should think very carefully before deciding to vary from them.

The only way to disallow nominations from the floor would be by a provision in the bylaws. How the board feels about it is irrelevant; it is the membership that gets to make that determination. The main reason is that it deprives the membership of one more option to nominate someone they may feel is a better choice. This may not be a significant consideration if indeed there is ample opportunity for members to be nominated ahead of time. On the other hand, calling for additional nominations take little time, so I don't see any strong argument against allowing it.

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking, but you do need to call for nominations from the floor for each office after the Nominating Committee has presented its nominations. The preferred way to do this (at least my preference; I'm not positive that it's an actual RONR rule) is to first call for nominations for president; then when no further nominations for president are forthcoming, call for nominations for vice president; and so on until you have called for nominations for all offices. If there is only one nominee for each position (or in the case of multiple identical positions, if there are no more nominees than positions to be filed) and if the bylaws do not require a ballot vote, the chair should simply declare the nominees elected without calling for a vote or general consent. But note the very important "if." If the bylaws require a ballot vote and don't include an exception, then a ballot vote must be held, and the ballots must include a space for write-ins.

So do I, now that I have re-read it. And in that case, I agree fully with Mr. Katz.

So far as RONR is concerned, non-board members have no rights at all at a board meeting; not even to attend the meeting. Any rights they may have would have to be specified in your governing documents., or otherwise granted by vote of the board. You didn't ask about non-board members being allowed to address the board (other than by asking questions), but in case that is an issue, the board, by majority vote, may allow them to address the board when no question is pending. But it would require a suspension of the rules by a two-thirds vote to allow them to speak in debate on a motion. And finally, under no circumstances may a non-board member be allowed to vote at a board meeting.

Guest dbarry, please post your question as a new topic. This thread is more than three years old!

And if he has changed his mind and wants to vote against the motion, he can do that, too. He just can't speak against it.

If the host didn't have a paid account, the meeting might have gone past the 40-minute limit for free accounts. Or there might have been a technical glitch.

Until a new person becomes president and the erstwhile president then becomes the IPP. But the position has no significance so far as RONR is concerned. Any role for the position (such as serving on the board of directors or chairing a committee) would have to be in your bylaws. And most of us on this forum agree that giving the IPP an automatic role is a bad idea.

Thanks, Shmuel. That helps. I should have looked there first.

Nothing, if it indeed is an electronic meeting. But that's not quite the issue. I want to know how to make sure that members must participate electronically. Yes, I think so. Even better might be "The meeting shall be conducted solely via Zoom." But my main question is would that provision have to be in the bylaws, or would a special rule of order suffice (so long as the bylaws authorize electronic meetings).

I agree. But if no one raised a timely Point of Order and everyone (or at least enough to break the quorum) left. The meeting is effectively over.

RONR (12th ed.) 9:31 defines "electronic meetings" as those "at which, rather than all participating members being physically present in one room or area ..., some or all of them communicate with the others through electronic means ...." As I read that definition, it seems to me that what many of us have been calling “hybrid meetings” are, in fact, electronic meetings even if only one or two members are participating electronically. So if a society’s bylaws authorize electronic meetings, without qualification, it seems to me that “hybrid meetings” automatically are authorized. Suppose that for whatever reason, a society wants to make sure that the participants are either all present in person, or all participating electronically. I believe that a society would have the right to do so. But my question is, would such a rule need to be in the bylaws provision authorizing electronic meetings, or could the bylaws simply authorize electronic meetings, with the requirement that all electronic meeting participants participate electronically being in a special rule of order?

it's also the 1915 (4th) edition. If you want to know the current rules, you need to get the 12th edition, published in 2020. It's not available online, but is available as a Kindle edition (and soon to be available as a CD-ROM).

If this is a small board (fewer than about a dozen members), seconds aren't required anyway, so you just process the motion and take take the vote. If it is a larger board that doesn't use the small board rules, and no one seconds the motion, you just say, "the motion dies for lack of a second," and move on.

No que yo sepa.

What do the bylaws say about the election? More specifically, do they say whether a ballot is required, and if so, do they contain an exception of there are no more candidates than positions?

This requires an interpretation of the statute, which is beyond the scope of this forum. You will need to consult a qualified attorney.

That depends on how the member got on the board in the first place. If the general membership elects the board, and then the board elects the officers from among the board members, they he or she probably can resign as an officer and still remain on the board. But if the membership elects the officers and other designated positions, and the members elected to those position gain their board membership by virtue of the office held, then probably not. A definitive answer, however, would require a review of your bylaws. If they remain on the board, they do not "hold no position." They hold the position of board member. And members may vote. Of course, that's "if." (See my response to your first question.)