Gary Novosielski

If I'm guessing correctly, this organization numbers its bylaws, and if any change is made to the bylaws, the entire bylaws document gets a new number. There's nothing wrong with doing that, I suppose, but since it's not a rule from RONR, all I can say is follow your own rule or custom. It is quite proper to compile an updated comprehensive bylaws document which contains all the current active rules as amended. Many organizations simply identify versions of the bylaws document by the date of its most recent amendment.

Please post your question as a new Topic, rather than adding on to a 2-year-old thread.

In drafting job descriptions, I usually recommend as the last item, "And such other duties as may be duly assigned by <the board or other authority as appropriate in your circumstance>."

Nor do I. @Bruce Lages's reply can be expanded by referring to the paragraphs per the index entry in RONR 12th ed.: bylaws amendments, §57 amendment of, within scope of notice, 35:2(6), 35:4, 56:50, 57:1(2), 57:4–5, 57:10–13

I agree with @Rob Elsman. Although such a vote would not be prohibited by RONR, it could be considered as a disciplinary reprimand of an employee, and such personnel matters are usually not part of the public record, perhaps by regulation. If it is done, it should probably be done only in executive session.

As a former School Board member in NJ, I recall when we hired a new Superintendent whose first recommendation was not to have the attorney present routinely. The effect on the monthly expenses was salutary. The thought was that it would be fairly easy to predict when the business scheduled for a particular meeting might benefit from the expertise of the attorney, which proved to be the case. And he was invited on those occasions. In one case he was asked to phone in during executive session to answer some legal questions. Whether a similar situation exists in the business of a Planning Board, you would be in a better position to assess than I would. Is it common that the attorney is called upon for advice during most or all meetings? I say "called upon" because I had the misfortune of seeing a few meetings of another Board whose attorney was in the habit of speaking during each meeting more than all the actual members combined, without ever being "called upon". (Some people's purpose in life is to serve as a bad example.) So, it's a question that might be kicked around among the members. (You could always ask the attorney, but I think the opinion there might be a little predictable. One does not ask a barber if one needs a haircut.) 😀

/* Never mind.

Motions relating to the opening and closing of the polls are the purview of the voting body, as long as they do not conflict with a superior rule. Section 30 of RONR 12th ed., entitled Motions Relating to Methods of Voting and the Polls will be helpful in filling out the details.

RONR does not, but apparently the NSO does, by virtue of appointing only one person to represent the member organization.

I suppose it is possible that somewhere there is, or has been, an example of a person or persons supporting a change to the bylaws to remove or weaken the authority of RONR over the business of the organization, without having any nefarious ulterior motives for doing so. It's just that I have never run across an example of it in real life.

Presumably the chair would not be making motions, but someone, yes. The chair cannot simply announce a restrictive rule, unless the bylaws grant such dictatorial powers, which would be unusual indeed.

Well, no. If it used the word "shall" it would mean that the person, once elected, must serve for three full terms, which is probably not what was intended. By using the word "may, it means that the person may serve for one, two, or three terms, but may not serve for a fourth.

They begin at the time of the election, and extend until three years later, presumably to the time of the election held then.

RONR advises that each office (in the order listed in the bylaws) be opened for nominations in turn. I don't think it would be a large problem to do it as you suggest, particularly if you're expecting few or no nominations from the floor, but then again it takes only a few seconds to say: "Are there any further nominations for President? [pause] If not... [pause] nominations are closed. Are there any further nominations for Vice president? [pause] ...", etc. It is more important that any desired nominations should be properly recognized than it is to adhere perfectly to procedure. As for the election, it will depend on your bylaws. If your bylaws specify that a ballot vote, without any exception for unopposed offices, then that is what is required, and the rule may not be suspended. The ballot must allow for write-in votes unless they are prohibited by the bylaws, which would be unusual. But if a ballot is not mandatory, and if only one candidate has been nominated for an office, the chair simply announces that the single nominee is elected by acclamation (without any vote). There are two basic ways to run nominations and elections You may take nominations for, say president, and then elect the president; then move on to the next office and repeat. Or, you may get all nominations made first, then close nominations, and run the election for all offices. Which method is used may be a matter of custom in your organization, or can be decided by the membership, or if there is no objection, by the method suggested by the chair.

When you abstain, what you are abstaining from is voting. It does not count as a Yes, nor as a No, nor as a vote cast. It usually has no effect on the outcome. Abstentions should normally not be called for, not be counted and not be recorded. Some chairs will ask for the Ayes, the Noes, and "any abstentions". This is improper. A person who does not answer to any of the three has in fact abstained just as surely as someone who shouts I abstain! So a voice vote should call only for Ayes and Noes. Some members may complain that they were not given the opportunity to abstain, which for obvious reasons makes no sense. To abstain, one simply does not vote.

Very true. RONR provides that the Nominating Committee should reconvene and fix the problem, but given all the other restrictions in the bylaws, this is probably impossible. Your bylaws seem to assume that nothing will ever go wrong anywhere. That assumption may have been unwarranted.

Nah, nobody's got commas in their name

Yes, it sounds like you need to adopt Special Rules of Order (see 2:22 for the procedure). Qualifications for office must be in the bylaws, but the procedure for conducting nominations and elections may be Special Rules of Order. SROs would supersede any conflicting rules in RONR, but they may not conflict with any specific provisions in the bylaws.

Well, it sounds like you are the victim of your own overly restrictive bylaws. Be careful what you vote for. I haven't read your bylaws in their entirety, but I don't see anything in what you quoted that would prevent write-in candidates, which RONR does permit. At the meeting, someone should raise a point of order that the two names are not eligible for election and the chair would presumably rule the point well taken. If the ballots have already been printed, the chair should instruct the voters to cross out those names, and that any votes for them will be counted as illegal votes. There should be space on the ballot for write-in votes, but if not, the chair should instruct the voters where and how to indicate their preference for any person who, but for the lack of a nomination, would be eligible to hold office.

You would list the 12 names on the ballot, along with 19 lines for write-in votes, with the instruction: Vote for up to 19. You can also reopen the floor to nominations prior to the election. Any person that receives a majority of the votes cast is elected, and any remaining unfilled seats would trigger a second (or more) ballot with fewer names and lines. Rinse, Repeat.

It doesn't sound like you have the latest edition (12th) of RONR, but that language is essentially the same. Additionally it refers to a footnote, §1:13n3, which says: So it depends what rights were suspended by the disciplinary action. If was a suspension from the board only, then a case could be made that he retains the rights of membership. You'll need to check the precise language of that motion in the Board's minutes, and also check your bylaws to see what they have to say in this regard, if anything. For example, does the board have the authority to suspend his rights as a general member. or is that something only the full membership can do?

No, the board cannot change a resolution that was adopted by a higher body, or act contrary to the language that was adopted. Not only can they not change the intent, they cannot move so much as a comma. As you say, the board's duty is to carry out the resolutions adopted by the Convention.

Yes. During meetings of the Membership, you can vote along with the rest. During such meetings, the board is not in session and board members are no different than anyone else.

A frustrating oversight.

Refer to RONR (12th ed.) 47:14-19, Suggestions for Inexperienced Presiding Officers. I'll quote :14 here: