Bruce Lages

If suspension of the rule is a concern, then it would be wise to make sure that any rule of order placed in the bylaws actually qualifies as a rule of order (see RONR, 2:14 for the definition of a rule of order). Otherwise, a bylaw rule will have to allow for its own suspension. Also, a rule of order may be more difficult to amend if placed in the bylaws, if your bylaws specify a procedure for their amendment that is more stringent than RONR's procedure for amending a special rule of order (RONR, 2:22).

Yes, as stated, to abstain means that you have not cast a vote. That can be done by casting a blank ballot, or while present,not casting a ballot at all. This should make it clear that offering an 'abstain option' on a ballot is really of no use, unless this is a legislative body or one in which the voters are representatives, such as delegates, for constituencies, in which the voting records of the voters are of importance to their constituents.

No.

The motion can simply be made again at the next meeting (which, I presume is tonight's general meeting). Since there was no ruling on a point of order about the motion's being in order - and I can't really determine from your post whether a point of order was actually raised or not - there is no reason the motion can't be offered again. But if a point of order is raised again, the chair does have an obligation to rule on it, as to whether it is well taken or not well taken. Be aware also that the chair's ruling on a point of order can be appealed (with a second), which will allow the assembly - by a majority vote to sustain or not sustain the ruling of the chair - to have the final word on the matter.

The procedure in your bylaws will take precedence over anything in RONR.

Assuming the resolution was postponed by the motion to postpone definitely (RONR 12th ed. Section 14), and not by the motion to postpone indefinitely (RONR Section 11), then yes, you are obligated to place it before the assembly at the meeting to which it was postponed. If that meeting is adjourned before the resolution can be brought up then it would carry over as unfinished business to the next meeting if that meeting occurs within a quarterly time period. Note though that placing the resolution before the assembly doesn't necessarily mean it will be brought to a vote.

You would only need to identify him by name and how he voted if the vote was taken by roll call. Otherwise no names are involved, and the result of a vote is recorded as just 'passed' or 'defeated' (or similar wording) in the case of a voice vote or show of hands vote, or as 'passed' or 'defeated' together with the vote totals for each - plus other information (see RONR 12th ed. 45:37) - for a ballot vote.

Do your bylaws actually require a ballot vote? If they don't, then the one nominee per open position can be declared elected by acclamation, and then you would hold an election for the remaining open positions. But also, importantly, why do you say that write-ins are not allowed? Do you have bylaw language regarding this? If so, can you quote it exactly?

That will depend entirely on the authority given the committee either in the bylaws (typically for a standing committee) or in the motion establishing the committee. I think that among many organizations both positive and negative responses to both questions could be expected.

Yes, there are very likely two issues here. The answer we need to J.J.'s question could determine whether the entire election can be declared to be not in order if the notice requirement was, in fact, not met. The other issue regarding a position that was apparently up for election, but not included on the ballot (or presumably in the notice of the election) affects that one position, which cannot be opened for nominations and election if proper notice for that position has not been given.

Assuming that the Board of Trustees has the power to amend the bylaws, an amendment can be made to either 1) strike out the article(s) establishing this Board of Governors and insert an article establishing the desired standing committee, or 2) amend this article to strike out references to the Board of Governors and insert the necessary language to create the standing committee, if the bylaw language readily allows this latter approach.

RONR does not limit meeting at the call of the chair to committees, however. See, for example 21:9.

But consider a properly-granted power to meet at the call of the chair as described in RONR. Does that power include the ability to cancel or reschedule a previously-called meeting? If a board sets its meeting times via resolution, that resolution can be amended or rescinded, albeit necessarily at a meeting. Meeting at the call of the chair does not involve a meeting requirement for setting meeting times, so can the chair amend or rescind his call, as long as adequate notice is given?

According to this statement, this board has, via an incorrect interpretation of its bylaw, allowed its meetings to be scheduled at the call of the chair. While scheduling meetings at the call of the chair is clearly recognized in RONR, there doesn't seem to be any indication as to whether that procedure includes the ability of the chair to cancel or re-schedule a previously-called meeting. Is there any text in RONR that speaks to that?

Whether your bylaw language that nominations shall close in November prohibits re-opening nominations after the November meeting will be a matter of bylaw interpretation, which can only be done by your membership. For what it's worth, RONR does allow the re-opening of nominations after they have been closed previously, so I'm not sure that just stating that nominations are closed after the November meeting precludes a re-opening at a later time, but that is for your membership to determine. However, the bylaw statement posted above that "A complete and final list of nominees for all offices shall be posted and a vote shall take place at the annual election meeting" would, I think, lend more weight to an interpretation that nominations may not be re-opened at the election meeting.

I don't understand what you mean when you say "The December meeting came and in the middle of elections a member made a motion to hold the election..." It doesn't make sense to have a motion to hold the election in the middle of holding an election. Did you possibly mean to refer to re-opening nominations, as suggested by your next sentence? Can you please clarify exactly what happened at the December meeting? If you did mean to refer to re-opening nominations at the December meeting, whether that is permitted under your bylaws will depend entirely on the exact wording of the nominations and elections procedures stipulated in your bylaws. According to RONR, nominations may be re-opened at the time of an election unless this is specifically prohibited by a provision of the bylaws.

If only one candidate is nominated and your rules do not require a ballot vote, then that candidate should be declared elected by acclamation (RONR, 12th ed., 46:40). There should not be a motion to cast a single ballot to elect that one candidate. If a ballot vote is required, then yes, the single candidate must appear on the ballot, but a space for a write-in name should also be included on the ballot. If I am understanding your last question correctly, the requirement for a ballot vote, with the necessary allowance for write-in candidates, will 'cancel', or prevent the use of the 'one vote' procedure as well as an election by acclamation.

I should have added, in response to your stating "if there are no other candidates", that one vote could be enough to achieve that majority if no other write-in votes for other candidates are cast.

The write-in still needs to receive a majority of the votes cast for that position in order to be elected.

I would also like to know whether you are just referring to these two advisory people as an 'advisory committee' or whether your board or society has actually established an advisory committee which these two people may be members of. There are very different rules regarding attendance and participation by non-members of a body, even those serving in an advisory capacity, versus appointed or elected members of a body.

I gather from your post that there are members who feel that the establishment of this special committee by the membership is invalid because of the bylaw provision? I agree with your interpretation that this bylaw provision allowing the board to create special committees (note that RONR says that ad hoc means the same as special in describing committees) does not prevent the general membership from creating committees as well. Special committees created by the general membership would, as you note, report to the general membership. If the intent was to allow only the board to create special committees I think different bylaw language would be required, specifically stating that creating special committees was exclusively a right of the board. I think RONR's basic premise is that a society always has the right to create special committees as it sees fit, unless a specific provision of the bylaws or higher level governing documents says otherwise.

Bylaw amendments, as with other motions, take effect immediately upon adoption unless a later effective date is included in the language of the motion. So, under the rules of RONR, this trustee would lose her eligibility to be a trustee upon adoption of the amendment. Since this is a community-related council it may be affected by local or state ordinances, but any such issues should be addressed to a lawyer familiar with local law.

What do your bylaws say about how a person becomes the president? And what do they say about the composition of the board?

A relatively minor point, but even if your bylaws did establish RONR as your parliamentary authority, the provisions of state law (here allowing proxy voting) would still take precedence over both RONR and your bylaws.

Thank you for the additional information. It now sounds like this information and motion you wanted to present had nothing to do with a committee report. Outside of a small board meeting, or committee and officer reports in a membership meeting, there should be no information presented without a related motion on the floor. So it would not be in order to permit you to, in effect, make a report before making your motion. You should first make your motion and then, while you have the floor first as the maker of the motion, present your information to support the motion. Note that in this scenario, you still have the right to both make your motion and provide the information to support the motion, contrary to what the parliamentarian stated. If I have not described your situation correctly, please come back and give us more information..