Gary Novosielski

That would be through the process known as "voting".

There is no rule in RONR against amending bylaws at a special meeting, unless the bylaws say it must be at a regular meeting. Sometimes they do. Sometimes they even say it must be an an annual general meeting. But regardless of what sort of meeting it is, all the other necessary steps must be complied with, such as previous notice, vote threshold, and whatever other requirements you have for bylaws amendments. An amendment is an amendment, even if it's just a semicolon that's being changed.

Typically, yes. I suppose you could arrange things so that this was not the case, but if you have no reason to believe otherwise then it's a safe bet that the chairman is a member.

Indeed.

Section of what?

It's up to the assembly to set its rules. The usual method is motion, second, debate, vote.

Once discussion on a motion has occurred, the lack of a second becomes moot. The motion should have been put to a vote.

Glad to help. As @Rob Elsman correctly points out, it may be necessary to return to the question that was pending and was then interrupted, under Unfinished Business at the next meeting, so the Secretary should be sure that the minutes reflect what was pending at the time that the Special Order was taken up. That way, if the assembly can't get back to it in the same meeting, they'll know where they left off. But in that event, I believe it won't matter who had the floor or how much time remained, since the restrictions on speeches and their length and number are reset on that new day.

I've been involved in situations using both methods, and I prefer the more streamlined approach of assigning those with the highest votes to the longest terms. If we assume that those with more votes (assuming always a majority is achieved) can be said to have the biggest vote of confidence, it makes sense to grant them the longer terms. Drawbacks can be found, but not as many, in my experience, as using separate sections. In an election in my former town, three terms of three years were open, plus one to fill a one-year vacancy. An incumbent, instead of running for reëlection to his three-year term, decided to run for the one-year term, thinking that there would be less competition there. (It was not allowed to run for both) He guessed wrong and lost his seat completely. It makes sense for someone to run for the office, and be happy with whatever term length he can get, and so to run for for all available seats if allowed but, as you point out, that could be a fifth ballot waiting to happen.

It depends. If the president is granted (in the bylaws) the power to appoint all committees (or this committee in particular) then presumably yes, he could presumably appoint himself to the committee. Also, if your bylaws say that the president is, ex officio, a member of all committees (or some committees) then the president may certainly attend meetings of those committees. But not with any superpowers beyond those of any other member. In any case the president has no right to "interfere" with a committee, or even to attend, if not a member, unless invited by (a majority vote in) the committee. Attempts to interfere with business can be met with a Point of Order (§23). Attempts to interfere with business outside of the context of a committee meeting can simply be ignored.

Pretty much, at least for Special Orders. Read the sections @Dan Honemann cited, for details. But on your point regarding the secretary: The secretary should not be noting in the minutes any points made in debate, then or any other time. If a question is interrupted by a Special Order, or for some other proper purpose, all that needs to be noted is who had the floor, and how much time remained at that point. And that could simply be recorded on a slip of paper. It would not go in the minutes.

Yes, they probably can. But if what you say is true, nobody will vote for them.

Move to insert the word sky before blue.

I won't require a bylaws amendment to have nominations the day of the election, unless they're expressly prohibited in your current bylaws. RONR already has a rule allowing it, so just go ahead and do it.

Within a committee, seconds are typically not required at all. And nation building is frowned upon. 🙂 But an absence does not abridge a member's rights.

Then you are free to demand a division of the question. That's why the rule exists.

One lives in hope.

Well, assuming these were "handed down" by a higher authority, it may be that the board had no options but to adopt them as their own policies. If that's the case, it could be argued that there would be no point in lengthy discussion.

No, a member cannot demand a revote. But a member who voted with the prevailing side (i.e., who voted No) could, at the same meeting, move to Reconsider the vote, which requires a second, is debatable, and needs a majority vote for passage. If Reconsider passes, the motion in question is opened again in the same condition it was, just before the vote. It could be debated further, and another vote taken, but the 75% threshold on that vote would remain the same. The above is true because the motion was defeated. A bylaws amendment that wins approval cannot be reconsidered. See RONR 12th ed. §37.

If it was not the same as the responses you received here, I would view it with some suspicion.

There is no "redo" procedure. A tie vote, since it less than a majority, is treated like any other motion that receives less than a majority. It is defeated. There is nothing particularly special about a tie vote.

No, that's some nonsense akin to sovereign citizen gibberish.

Okay, those bylaws appear to prevent nominations except at that one meeting, which supersedes the rule in RONR. Also, I'm not certain that saying no one can be a candidate unless nominated would prevent write-in votes (which are votes for a non-candidate) but I think an argument could be made that this was the intent.

That really doesn't answer @Weldon Merritt's question. Can you quote the exact language that prohibits nominations at any other meeting?

Never mind.