Gary Novosielski

You should not be voting for a "slate" at all, if the rules in RONR apply. If there are three seats to be filled, you are electing three people (plus any other offices that are elected directly by the membership). People who have only partially completed three-year terms would not be up for election until their terms expire.

Not even when taking 46:40 into account?

RONR does not address the topic. All the uses of the word signature in RONR all appear to assume that they are written, but I do not think this amounts to a prohibition against electronic signatures. Ultimately, the interpretation of the bylaws of any society is a matter for the society itself to consider.

I think the operative word here is neither as nor like. Rather, it is treating. If it were actually a case of filling blanks, there would be no need to decide how to treat them.

You use the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted, see RONR (12th ed.) §35. That's more straightforward than Rescinding the old motion and adopting a new one.

In all except small assemblies operating under small board rules: No it's not permissible. In committees, it's fine, and in small boards it's fine. Otherwise, the chair should maintain an appearance of impartiality, which includes not participating in debate, nor voting unless: that single vote would be the deciding one, or on a ballot vote. If the chair feels compelled to enter into debate, he should step down from the chair; turning it over to, presumably, the vice president, or failing that, some other suitable member; and not reclaim the chair until that question has been disposed of, at least for the time being.

Since we have not read the actual charge to the committee, I'm not willing to speculate on what it said. And since this thread took place before that rule was in effect, it does not apply.

Well, If they had truly been General Orders for prior meetings, that's one thing, but if they were just an item listed, say, under New Business as nothing more definite than "• things to possibly discuss" as we've seen here, then maybe not so much.

I would note that the suggested motion might suspend the rules, but would fail to actually institute the by-election.

" I move to suspend the rules and hold a by-election for the vacant council seats...". I'm not sure if that majority of the vote is in the bylaws, or is your question. If the rules in RONR apply, suspension of the rules requires a two-thirds vote.

Yes the bylaws can remove a shocking variety of rights, even very fundamental ones.

Well, that's a four-year-old thread. You'll note that my statement "it is possible that they did not exceed their charge, depending on exactly what it was" complies with what I think you meant, 57:5. Obviously if their charge was such that a revision was not authorized, then a revision was not authorized.

Yes, RONR does speak to such a scenario, and it is the proper way to conduct business. A motion is made and seconded, and then (and only then) is discussion on the topic in order. It cannot in any way be considered bullying, since no one is prevented from discussing the matter, offering amendments, and whatever else is required to get the result desired by a majority. This would properly be New Business. There is no such thing as "continued business". There is such a thing as Unfinished Business, but this would not be unfinished since until there has been a motion, the business has not yet begun.

Oops, I said "nominated" when I meant "appointed. I'll fix that.

No. Nominations are debatable, so the discussion is fine, but members cannot be excluded from a meeting, except in accordance with disciplinary processes.

Not only do you have to include a blank line for the second position, you also must have a blank line for the first position to allow for write-in votes for every office. In addition, at the election meeting, the floor should be opened for additional nominations, by the Chairman or by any members. Did you never have nominations before, or are all your candidates derived from volunteering (self-nomination)? If the position goes unfilled on the first ballot, additional ballots should be held. Incomplete elections must be completed. You imply that the chairman has the power to appoint people. Is this actually in your bylaws? If so, such an appointment would not be for a full term, but only until the election is completed. It remains unfinished business until completed. If there is someone else who would accept the office if nominated appointed, then there is apparently someone who would accept the office if elected. It should be noted that in order to be elected, a candidate must receive a majority vote, that is, must receive a vote on more than half of the ballots that contain at least one vote for Board-Member-at-Large. That is, if the rules in RONR apply (see disclaimer below).

From this it sounds like the counting of members who had actually abstained as having voted should also be added to the three non-member votes.

There seems to be a mismatch of terminology here. There would presumably be an intermediate level between these two: Board Committee <-- Is there one of these? Subcommittee If the subcommittee is actually a committee of the board, the board should be able to instruct it what should be in its report. In any case, its report should be to the whole board, not to just the chairman. Has the board adopted a motion directing the chairman to produce the documents?

I can. He might feel that the case is so weak it would not stand up to scrutiny by someone qualified to examine such matters.

Some questions: Does this Committee/Board (which is it?) report to the general membership? Are there rules somewhere that say the board can discipline its own chair and other officers, or would this be more under the powers of the general membership? If the only contemplated result is a resolution of censure, are you sure you need an investigation committee? How many people are in this "group" that have grievances? If it's three or more, they could certainly outvote the chair and her ally, when there is a vote to end the meeting early.

Yeah, that's not going to cut it. You'd need clear and convincing proof, like for example a recorded roll-call vote, but of course that's not possible since the secretary would never call the name of anyone not entitled to vote. Get into the habit of raising a Point of Order as soon as you notice the rules not being followed. Many situations cannot be remedied if a point of order was not raised in a timely manner. Illegal voters are more of an exception.

Nah.

I hadn't considered adjourned meetings, because they are normally allowed, and continuing unfinished business at the next regular meeting is also normal procedure, meaning that E would be in the bylaws for no reason.

The three people who were ineligible to vote--is it known how they voted? It's clear that their votes could have affected the outcome of the vote. Do we know whether or not they did? If it can be definitely established that their votes did not affect the outcome, then the vote stands. Otherwise the fact that it could have affected the outcome means that the vote was invalid, and a Point of Order should be raised at the next meeting.

That's quite true, and nothing wrong with it. What is wrong with this picture is the president being absent without good cause.