Gary Novosielski

If a meeting is considered an activity, which I would think it should be, then are these members not already suspended from attending meetings? Since their improper behavior occurred at meetings, it would seem odd to suspend them from everything else but meetings.

The rule is that all motions made should be recorded, except, normally, any that were withdrawn. All motions would include those defeated, adopted, laid upon the table, postponed, committed, and the like--some of which can still be withdrawn, while others cannot. Defeated motions, since they cannot be withdrawn, would be recorded.

Yes. The point of order itself, the ruling of the chair, the rationale of the chair for that ruling, and the results of an appeal if any.

It is not incorrect, and is almost as good as @George Mervosh's.

But we are told by the OP that "our state laws allow proxy voting unless the bylaws state otherwise", which satisfies the condition in 45:71. Granted this does not say that RONR outranks state law, but it does say that when state law leaves the door open, RONR fully intends to walk on through. That may not be true in this instance because of the relatively weak "adoption" of RONR. But for that, however, it seems to me that proxies would be prohibited by an explicit adoption of RONR, which means I disagree with @Bruce Lages on this point, as he seems to be assuming that state law unconditionally permits proxies.

Blanks are not always counted as abstentions, especially not when there are multiple identical positions for a particular office on the ballot, which seems to be the case in this example.. An abstention occurs if the ballot shows no indication of any preference for that office. By casting one of the two possible votes, the voter has indicated a preference, and that is counted as a ballot cast. If the voter had made no marks at all for that office, it would be counted as an abstention for that section of the ballot. If there is only one seat open in a given section, such as an election for president, then leaving that single vote blank would count as an abstention. The only way to vote against a candidate for an office is to vote for another candidate. A write-in would fit that requirement. But in your case, if a candidate acquires votes on less than a majority of the ballots cast, that candidate is not elected, at least not on that round of voting.

But RONR explicitly says otherwise:

I can hardly be expected to do better than the original language. 😏

I think the claim that it is not a "hard and fast rule" in this context refers to whether to use Resolved or use Ordered in the wording of a resolution/order. The passage of either one can certainly create a hard and fast rule for the person tasked with carrying it out.

You'll need the advice of an attorney before you finalize the rules. It may be true that some of your members may not enjoy hearing the same thing from several people, but the Sunshine Laws in your state may, and the FIrst Amendment of the US Constitution does,take precedence over the comfort of board members. If your school board is a public body, it is subject to the rules regarding freedom of speech, and school boards who attempted to shut down annoying members of the public have found themselves on the losing end of some expensive lawsuits. Members of the public can be held to the rules of decorum, but there are no rules against being boring or repetitive.

Yes, members can vote for themselves, even if not nominated, by writing in their own name. They can also vote for their opponent, but this is relatively rare. And yes, all members present count toward a quorum, whether they vote or abstain.

It's not clear how that's possible. If the ballots have been preserved, a simple recount should settle the matter without the need for a new election. But if not, then any member present whose rights are not abridged as a result of discipline may vote.

In this case the president is not an ex-officio member of the board, but rather an elected member of the board, subsequently elected as president. The bylaws appear to cover the resignation of a director, but not of officers, so the rules in RONR would apply, as noted by @Atul Kapur. And since the president is elected from among the members of the board, the newly elected president would also be a director.

No. As you noted above a majority vote is required for election If a member does not get a vote on more than half of the ballots received for that position, the member is not elected. If the results of the election leave some seats unfilled, then the election is not complete, and additional rounds of balloting may be required. Write-in votes are allowed, and nominations may be reopened between rounds of balloting.

In my view, it it either RONR, or it is less than RONR.

Yes, you do. In (usually small) groups where all or nearly all members are typically present and voting, a majority of the entire membership will be a lower threshold.

Yes they should, except, normally, any that were withdrawn.

I agree with @Dan Honemann that this is likely a nod to a long-standing custom, rather than an attempt to establish a rule or even a "should". I'm fine with reserving it for paid employees, where it presents an easily interpreted bright line distinction, which can be useful to those reading the resolution or order, and has the weight of tradition behind it. I don't think it's worth trying to analyze when it would or would not be applicable to members, officers, committees, etc., since all forms are equally binding. The only time I've seen it in the wild is a resolution passed in a former organization which did have a paid non-voting secretary. The resolution ended with something like "be it Resolved, that the Board favors the passage of S.123; and be it Ordered that the Secretary forward a certified copy of this Resolution and Order to Senator Claghorn."

/* never mind.

If the rules in RONR apply, only members who are physically present in the room at the time of the vote are eligible to cast a vote, and proxy voting is absolutely prohibited.

More to the point, if no Point of Order was raised at the time, the lack of a vote is no longer at issue. Since no one objected, it could be argued that the motion to reopen nominations was agreed to by unanimous consent. Nothing you have presented would suggest that the election results are faulty in any way.

Discipline for improper behavior is a complex topic and is covered in detail in RONR Chapter XX.

No, a parliamentary inquiry is not a decision of the chair, merely an opinion, so it cannot be appealed. I would think that if the Board can amend the bylaws completely on their own, then they are the ones who can interpret what those bylaws mean. But the rules in RONR only apply when they apply, and apparently in your organization, on this particular point, they don't.

The executive board has no such authority if the rules in RONR apply. Nor should the chair be making motions.

By the use of the motion to Discharge, of course. (§36) Or by a motion to further instruct the committee [13:22].