Gary Novosielski

Yes, but probably in the form of Rescind. But I don't think the member would have to wait for that to happen before resuming attendance at board meetings.

The rights of membership can only be abridged by discipline as provided in your bylaws, or in Chapter XX of RONR. However although a member is presumed to have the right to attend a general membership meeting, no member has the right to disrupt the meeting by violating decorum. It is the duty of the chair to enforce the rules for debate set out in §43, especially 43:19. Dealing with Offenses During a Meeting is dealt with in 61:6-21. The presiding officer should be completely familiar with both of these sections.

Majority approval is fine in the context of a meeting, where a deliberative assembly has had the opportunity to deliberate. Without that process, I would not trust that a bare majority should be allowed to decide. I am not a fan of voting by email to begin with, but in the case where a decision is unanimous, I admit that deliberation is unlikely to affect the result. Of course such provisions must be in your bylaws. RONR prohibits either practice otherwise.

Well, if you actually rescind the previous decision, there is nothing left to discuss. Under the typical procedure, if it desired to discuss the advisability of rescinding a motion, and presuming that the motion is still properly subject to rescission, the way to do it is: to move to Rescind [§35], and then during debate on that motion openly discuss its advisability. Also during this discussion on the motion it is in order to substitute a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted, and propose changes to the specifics of the original motion as desired. Those who, after debate, remain unconvinced that the proposed rescission or amendments are advisable, will vote No, and if they prevail, defeat the motion to Rescind, leaving things as they were.

Both can occasionally find a nut, and are right twice a day.

RONR notes [41:34] that motions under this heading are not typical, but they are not prohibited. RONR notes that in some societies, matters of discipline (for offenses occurring outside of a meeting) are routinely placed here. One might well ask why motions made under this heading were not made during New Business, but if the motion arose out of a discussion that occurred under Good of the Order, and the assembly wished to take immediate action, there is no reason it could not act on such a motion. This is the sort of question that is often influenced greatly by custom (i.e., past practice).

Yes, that's a common problem with labor unions. With my teacher's union as, I suspect, with the OP's, the problem with multiple shifts did not arise, with the exception of some night custodial crew, and the Board of Ed was reasonable in assuring that all members could attend general membership meetings which were few, and that their rep could attend rep council meetings which were held immediately after school in the late afternoons. Ours was a wall-to-wall association, which included teachers, aides, nurses, secretaries, custodians--everyone except supervisors/administrators (and substitute teachers, but not for lack of trying).

Well, Guest Lascsak, the person who made the crack about the French pronunciations (which is a valid dictionary definition in English, by the way) is one of the authors of RONR, so I don't think you're going to succeed in getting him kicked out. But good luck with that; let us know how it goes.

This is reminiscent of the similar topic about a chair canceling a meeting. In my view, once the requisite conditions to call a meeting have been met, and the meeting properly called, "defections" have no effect. This is similar to the rules about previous notice. If the person giving notice of intent to move an item has a change of heart and no longer favors the motion, the notice is still valid and anyone else can move it. If the meeting is properly called, and there are no specific rules regarding its cancellation, then those who have changed their minds are free to attend the meeting and vote against whatever they dislike.

If I understand the situation correctly, the motion to come out of executive session must logically occur in executive session. Therefore, while the motion to enter executive session would be recorded in the regular minutes, the motion to com out would not. The minutes would record what occurred, if anything, upon return from executive session. But the motion to come out of executive session would be recorded in the minutes of the executive session itself. As others have noted, motions may be made in executive session (although Sunshine Laws may affect this for publicly bodies) and minutes are kept, although typically separate from the minutes of the regular session.

True, but there are enough differences between meetings of a committee and an assembly, such as the rule that two members may call a meeting if the chair fails to do so, that other distinguishing specifics should not be surprising. I concur with the two authorship team members that unless the cancelling of a properly called meeting is an enumerated power of the chair, then it can't properly occur.

I think it's important not to refer to the meeting(s) as having been canceled. They were not, unless your bylaws authorize the president to do so. But if nobody showed up and held the meeting, then it was simply a meeting that did not occur. You can censure or otherwise discipline the president for putting out misinformation, if you like. Regarding tie votes: Ties are not "broken". Since a tie vote is less than a majority, the motion simply fails. With ordinary motions this is not a problem, but with elections, electing nobody is not an option. In cases where no one is elected, a second (or subsequent) ballot is held until someone achieves a majority. Follow @Atul Kapur's recommendation and hold a proper election rather than voting yes/no on individual candidates.

No. Part of the requisite conditions for a deliberative body is that all members can hear each other, which can't happen if they're divided up. Even holding meetings online is a serious problem unless your bylaws authorize the practice. Even putting all that aside, it's doubtful that the president acting alone could order this. As a former teachers union president myself, I found it important to have the entire Rep Council meet as a group, since the ARs at the elementary school or the high school often have specific issues that would not occur to the other group, and this was the forum to bring them up and seek good solutions. Keeping the groups separate runs the risk of fostering competition between the groups rather than cooperation. Not to mention the parliamentary rats nest that would result when figuring out how voting would work across the three groups, say, if a motion was made in the third group that the first two never heard of. The rules in RONR that all members of an assembly be physically present in one location still describe the best conditions. I understand this is difficult, but this should remain your goal.

And what is the question?

To accept the nomination? No. To accept the office if elected? Yes, according to your bylaws. But it would wise for the candidate to see how the election turned out before resigning.

Perhaps, but I don't think I would rule that only one meaning is reasonable. I would simply rule that my interpretation is the correct one.

No, they may both vote.

This is turning into Roberr's Rules

But we were just pronouncing a few final consonants, honest!

No, nor does it mean a secret sexual relationship. But neither does it rule one out, if the bylaws are silent on the matter.

If not, then what did they interpret it as? It could not have been as an attempt to decline the presidency, because as you have pointed out, this cannot be done. At the time this attempt was made, the VP had already become president.

The word ls not defined. It is used in two places, not in the sense of an office, but in the ordinary dictionary definition of the word--particularly as it relates to communication between units of an organization--likely an artifact of General Robert's military background. You will find it in 59:65, and 59:82, noting where liaison should be maintained between different committees of a convention.

Not exactly--a 2/3 vote is required to suspend a rule that is interfering with something the assembly wishes to do. It applies to all rules of order except those that are defined as non-suspendible. Bylaws in general are not suspendible, even by a unanimous vote, except for those that are clearly in the nature of rules of order, i.e., rules that relate to the orderly conduct of business in the context of a meeting. Bylaws relating to opening and closing nominations are in this category and so are suspendible, unless they specifically provide that they are not. So the rules about suspendability tell us whether a bylaw is suspendible at all and, if it is, a 2/3 vote is required to suspend it.

When the president breaks the rules, you don't make requests, you raise a Point of Order, and points of order are recorded in the minutes. But even if you had been successful in recording that someone had stepped forward, what was your next move? You're correct that the president can't prohibit someone from volunteering, but neither can the president just put someone into office. It seems likely to me that it is the membership's, and not the board's decision on who should become secretary. If the board has the power to fill vacancies, it can do so in this case, but such an appointment would last only until the election can be completed.

It would be best to have the by-laws reviewed by a parliamentarian. There's no harm in having an attorney look at it as well, but most of the missteps made in drafting bylaws are parliamentary in nature rather than legal,