Gary Novosielski

Based on your bylaws, removal requires only a majority of those (board) members present and voting. Once removed, the VP, if one exists, automatically becomes president, unless there is specific language in your bylaws regarding vacancies in the presidency in particular.

In this instance they may not need to. If the annual meeting date is determined in the bylaws, then it does not need to be called. People can simply show up. The President has no authority to cancel the annual meeting, unless some strange provision in the bylaws grants that authority. There is no need to cancel any meeting simply because the President does not plan on attending. The Vice President, if any would preside in that case, but if for some reason the VP is unable or unwilling, the meeting is still held, and at the start of the meeting, the Secretary (or basically anyone) can

Well, it doesn't say that, and since it was a paraphrase, it could well be that the misunderstanding took place on its way to this forum.

Well, if the adopted amendment were such that it caused the mover no longer to agree with the motion (to an extent that would justify requesting leave to withdraw) then why not? I agree with Dan that the correct interpretation of the rule as currently written is that this is not permitted, but I have not seen a persuasive argument on why the rule is beneficial and should be protected. Was it common practice at some point for people to make a motion disingenuously, and then argue against it? In other words, what was broken that this rule fixes?

Yes it is. But a Point of Order might have been a better choice than merely voting No on the motion. If a member believes that a motion is not in order because it violates the bylaws, a Point of Order raises the underlying question and addresses it directly, and it also gets the ruling and possible appeal into the minutes, without requiring the permission of the assembly.

If it's an elected office, that's the Honorable Dog Catcher.

The chair is incorrect. First, why does New Business not appear on the agenda? Is the agenda adopted by the assembly at the start of the meeting, or is it just plopped down by the chair, and that's it? If the latter, it is not binding at all. If the former, anyone can move to add New Business to the agenda. But even if there is no heading for New Business, it is not correct that this prevents people from making new motions. When all the business on the agenda is disposed of, and before adjournment, a member may obtain the floor and make a motion as if under New Business.

...deleted...

If you're planning to make the results of the votes public, why are you taking the votes in executive session?

No. No amount of wrongdoing can turn it into rightdoing. Permitting electronic meetings will require a bylaws amendment (and presumably some rules of order to allow for the non-standard nature of those meetings. But since the meetings were not properly called, the business transacted at them is not subject to ratification. If actions were taken as a result of those meetings, the actions can be ratified, presuming these are actions that the assembly could have authorized in advance.

Or maybe 501(c)3?

Making a motion does not affect your right to vote on it any way you want, or not vote on it if you don't.

Absolutely not.

n/m

If the rules in RONR apply, it is not correct to say that the person with the highest number (or the five highest numbers) of votes is elected. It is necessary to get a majority vote to be elected. I.e., more than half of the number of ballots that have any director votes. First you count all the ballots that have at least one director vote (count ballots, not votes). Take the lowest number that's greater than half of that, and that's your "Needed to elect" value.

The election committee has no such power. Voters have the right to abstain, partially or totally. Only the bylaws could change that rule, not some out-of-control committee with delusions of grandeur.

That would account for it.

I don't see where this quoted material came from. It does not appear to be part of this thread. Bug, perhaps? I have a vague impression that I've seen something like it before.

One obvious example would be if the minutes incorrectly recorded that you made a motion at that meeting. You would certainly know that this was inaccurate, and you should certainly offer a correction.. In any case RONR explicitly states that any current member can participate fully in the approval process.

If there are no overriding by-laws or rules, then where is it stated that RONR is the parliamentary authority? I find it almost unthinkable that the Council would have no bylaws. Does it have a policy manual? The bylaws are often included in that manual. And there must be state laws that establish the existence of municipal councils and give at least an overview of their operations.

No. If the rules in RONR apply, the board cannot make up rules that conflict with the will of the general membership or its bylaws. Furthermore, the membership has the right to instruct the board and further restrict its operations. The board has only such powers as are granted by the bylaws. It cannot make up powers.

No. In fact a motion for a special rule of order that conflicts with the bylaws would not be in order at all. Special Rules of Order may be used to supersede rules in the parliamentary authority, but not in the bylaws.

Hmm, you're right. I had learned long ago not to trust these page numbers, as they seemed to vary with the font size, but they seem more durable now. In any case I doubt they match the printed book, unless the preface begins on page 24.

Slim to none, approaching none in the limit.

Yes, I said that four years ago, I'd have to scroll back to understand what it was in reference to.