SaintCad

But the point still remains that those ellected illegally could not vote for that amendment which is a concern of the OP.

First things first. Those people on the board in violation of the bylaws ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE AGENDA or EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE!!. Their election was invalid and as soon as a Point of Order is held up to that effect everyone should be aware they have NO RIGHTS!! They CANNOT vote for the Bylaw Amendment either as members of the Agenda Committee or as members of the Executive Committee as they are not members and never were. Honestly the best solution would be for the Presiding Officer to inform them ahead of time that since their election violated the Bylaws they are not members of the committees and cannot attend any meetings unless they are legally elected.

And if multiple proposals pass then which is adopted?

Or the agenda can be amended in the beginning by a majority of members to set a time for adjournment.

Would being wrongfully denied a nomination be considered a continuing breach for violating the basic right of a member or does that require a timely Point of Order?

Until the bylaw is adopted (and even assuming it is not) what is the status of the 6 (non?)members of the Agenda committee? And would the actions of the Agenda Committee need to be ratified at some point when this is settled since the composition violates the bylaws?

Would it be appropriate for the officer to use their report to solicit feedback later like "Email me if you have any ideas for fundraisers for the new gym." and leave it at that?

One question: On the agenda was the item listed specifically as a straw poll? Or was it more like "discuss X". Please quote the agenda exactly because if it was the second the member may be perfectly correct and it was on the agenda and a motion could be raised.

Well if his motions require a second from a different member then you certainly could prevent him by never seconding any of his motions.

Wait do we know that the OP is talking about the wording of the motion? "Detail of the motion could mean who made the motion, who seconded it, the vote count, elements of the debate, who voted for/against it. I think we need more information on what changes the member wants.

As a side note to Josh's reply, that is why an individual's right cannot be suspended. Since it is a minority of one you would need a unanimous vote and we assume a member would not vote to take away their own right and so we do not even entertain such a notion.

I'm not sure it is a new topic as it applies to the OP's generalized question "What if there's a violation ..."

I noticed that violations that result in a continuing breach, need to be ratified, etc. are violations of action, that is the Board or Chair took action in violation of the bylaws. Short of disciplinary action or a timely Point of Order, is there anything members can do for violations of inaction i.e. not doing something required in the bylaws? For example suppose under the bylaws the President is supposed to assemble all of the standing committee chairs to approve the budget in January but the President doesn't and it's now June.

I suspect the OP is saying that since the Foundation is not a part of the body that they are Suspending the Rules to hear their report, kind of like you need a majority vote to have a non-member speak. Or they could be meaning that the meeting is going to Recess as jstackpo suggests.

I know there might be legal issues involved but limiting it to RONR. The Board of a union takes a certain action or doesn't do something according to the bylaws and a member of the body (not on the Board) wants information from them. Proper venue is a meeting of the membership correct? But there are no meetings of the membership ever held (voting is done at the sites). Would the proper venue for the member's Points of Order, Requests for Information, etc. switch to the Board Meeting?

Maybe the meeting is run without rules since everyone sits around and talks about their feelings. I was parliamentarian on a school council that was run this way. The Chair felt rules got in the way of people talking. They didn't want bylaws because those are rules. Sure there were a lot of warm and fuzzies going around but nothing was ever accomplished other than wasting 2 hours a month.

But the big picture answer is that there does need to be a vote on something. Maybe it is Amend Something Previously Adopted or maybe a simple Amendment or maybe vote on a new main motion, we don't really know yet. The point is that the believe that there should not be another vote at all on anything is erroneous.

Well technically according to the bylaws only a majority OTMP&V are needed to decide any question isn't there a line of thought that that Suspend the Rules only needs a majority vote unless the bylaws say otherwise?

Does you committee double-check the count or have two people count simultaneously? If so then what's the problem?

If it's not a meeting then there are no minutes. As for the record of their decision, if I meet with the other members of the Board and decide on recognizing Alice for her 40 years of membership, do we have to record it? In fact, I would support NOT making a record so during the discipline hearing when they are asked, "By what authority did you decide to spend $1.5 million painting the shed?" "We decided over emails." "Is it in the minutes?" "Well it wasn't really an official meeting."

Ahh this is what I was missing. I thought we were saying 2 out of 3 members of the Board and that made no sense. Now I see it's 2 out of 3 members.

OK if that is the case then why doesn't the Board have to go through disciplinary procedures? I see nothing in the OP that indicated that an officer can be removed by 2/3 vote, only that one is elected by 2/3 vote.

Note to #3, Since it is "or" until [the officer's] successor is elected then wouldn't the officer in question have to be removed by electing his successor in the special meeting which has to be done by the membership? I don't think the OP can be interpreted simply as 2/3 of the Board can vote a member off. What am I missing?

I think the "majority vote of the members present" may be because of one way I've seen this vote done. Let's say there are 25 members present. On a member's ballot , they list up to X (limit in the bylaws) different names for candidates and if someone is on 13 or more ballots they are elected. In this case abstentions or blank ballots are treated like "None of the above".

Or if someone is voting but not present e.g. via proxy, teleconference, Western Union.