Weldon Merritt

Provided, of course, that each meetng is within a quarterly time interval after the preceding one.

True. But it is supposed to be relased at the NAP Training Conference next August.

I think that change actually was in the 10th edition, and just carried forward to the 11th.

It's still a rule of order. It is the function of a rule, not where it is placed, that determines whether it is a rule of order.

Who says mjhmjh would be "disrupt[ing] another member's speech"? Maybe mjhmjh wants to distribute the papers during his or her own debate.

A good tactic when someone makes a claim that doesn't sound right is to ask them to show you the rule that supports their claim, rather than you tryimg to find a rule to refute it. The burden of proof should be on the person making the claim.

As most of the regulars know, he's a Ph.D. But he doesn't make a big to-do about it.

So why did you ask it?

Amen to that!

It probably gives you some neasure of credibility. Whether the credibility is deserved is another matter. I have known some credentialed members who led me to wonder how they ever got credentialed. Fortunatly, not many (at least that I have met).

Or whoever actually authorized the contractor to do the work? This ultimately is a legal question.

Yes, and I know of one election in New Mexico some years ago when the sole candidate listed on the ballot came in third in the election! There was a very unusual set of circumstances, but it does show that write-in campaigns can be effective.

I concur. I was in the process of typing a reply when Mr. Martin posted his reply. I have nothing to add to what he said.

In other woirds, yes, they can be allowed to participate in the discussion, but not vote. And of course, they won't count as present for purposes of the quorum.

Going strictly by RONR, you are never required to abstain , although you should abstain from any issue on which you have a pecuniary or personal interest not in comnon with other memberts (e.g., your husband's salary). But, since you are talking about a school board, there very well may be statutory provisions that take precedence over RONR. So my advice would be to consult the board's attorney.

No. One ballot = one vote, regardless of whether the voter marks one, twe, or three names. So if there are 50 ballots, a majority would be 26. And any candidate who receives 26 or more votes is elected. If more than three receive 26 or more votes, then the three highest are elected. This is the answer for non-cumulative voting. I'm not sure how cumulative voting would affect the answer.

My previos response was based on what the OP had posted up to that point. Granted, the OP did say in the original post: But that seemed to be a desription of the organization's custom, rather than a bylaws provison. If that is what the bylaws actually say, as seems to be the case based on the OP's later response, then I would agree that even though it is not very well written, it probably does mean that the VP doesn't move up, and there is an election for president. I would feel more confident, however, if I could be sure that the langauge is an actual quote, or at least an accurate paraphrase, and not just someone's interpretation of the bylaws.

Based on what you have said so far, your erstwhile 1st VP is the president now, and the NC has nothing to say about it. Likewise, all other VPs have now moverd one rung up the ladder, and the only vacancy you have is in the lowest-ranked VP position. Whether the NC has any role to play in filling that vacancy depends on your bylaws, which you have not quoted. (You have given us only a paraphrase.)

The previous responses all seem to assume that you are a member of the assembly who wants to know how to make the motion go away. If that is the case, I can't add anything of substance. But if you are the chair (as it seems you might be), you handle it during the meeting pretty much as any other motion. You certainly don't have the authority to block or veto it. But you can , before the meeting, try to line up some members who will take the steps the other responders have suggested.

President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer? There may well be other positions (directors) that are equivalent, but that hardly means that all are equivalent.

Also, knowing the basis for the chair's ruling may be important in deciding whether to appeal. Maybe the explanation will be convincing, and no appeal will be needed.

The appointment is not ratified, and the president needs to appoint someone else that the board will ratify.

I believe that Mr. Lages and reelsman were reacting to your statement that "this director could be considered an electric director." (Emphasis added.)

I concur with J.J. There is no "old board" or "new board"; there is just the board, which may have some old members and some new members.

Whether something is "necessary and needed" depends largely on one's viewpoint. But if you want to dispose of the matter quickly, move the Previous Question as soon as you can gain recogntion. Make sure you have an ally ready to second your motion. PQ is undebatable, and requires a 2/3 vote. Then if adopted, the motion that you are concerened about gets voted on immedaitely, without further debate.