Gary Novosielski

I think not. But then would they count toward the quorum requirement? Perhaps if two of the four are disqualified, the quorum becomes a majority of the remaining two, i.e. two.

No, I'm saying that the term Special Order of Business is not a term. A Special Order pertains to one item of business for one meeting. The Standard Order of Business contains a subdivision called "Special Orders", which occurs fourth in the Standard Order of Business. It is possible to revise the order of business to add or delete categories, or you can adopt an agenda for the meeting, in which case an order of business would not be used.

No. A Special Rule of Order is as you have described. A Special Order (not "of business) is a question or item of business that has been set to be taken up at a particular hour, and takes precedence over any other business that may be in progress at that hour.

There is a motion to Reconsider which can be made after the motion passed. But it can only be moved by someone who voted on the prevailing side of the original motion--in this case by someone who voted Yes on it. How did this gentleman vote?

There's no reason why newly elected directors would not have access to prior years' minutes, but admittedly not much can be learned in one day.

Were there not even any write-in votes for Vice President? That's unusual. In any case, this sounds like an incomplete election to me, so it should be completed by having the membership vote on the office of Vice President, which the present incumbent has now agreed to run for.

No, that's explicitly authorized in the Work.

I don't understand why a "vacancy" remained on the ballot. It sounded as though John was nominated. So I see no reason why he did not appear on the ballot.

Umm, we already got that, two posts above yours.

Yes, of course. But be careful what you wish for. Do you have a well-defined meaning of the word Hybrid? Does it require that there be members who are not physically present? What happens if no one signs on? Is the meeting valid? How do you determine a quorum? How do people seek recognition? Can people interrupt a speaker when this is permitted by RONR? I could go on, but you get the point. Rules have to be written with care.

No. If your paraphrase of the bylaws is correct, this is prohibited. No. The bylaws cannot be "waived" just because they have become inconvenient. Yes. Points of order can be raised now, because the breach is of a continuing nature.

Okay, that's clear to me now.

That member can certainly use analogies like this as an argument against the provision during debate on the amendment, but can't unilaterally torpedo the assembly's right to adopt it, as long as the follow the rules for amendments.

The notice of the special meeting must contain a clear and specific description of the subject matter of any business to be brought up at the meeting. While it is not necessary to include the exact language as it will be moved, having the exact motion would appear to satisfy the requirement above.

I'm not sure why you believe that opponents of the motion would need 2/3 support to defeat it. They would need 2/3 if they decided to move the Previous Question on the motion, but that would not guarantee its defeat, and if it passed, the blank would still need to be filled. But the opponents of the motion need only vote the question down like any other motion, whether the blank has been filled yet or not.

And as long as it remains an inquorate meeting, the ratification cannot happen. So, the ratification cannot happen until after it has already happened. There is something very 22-ish about that catch.

Is should never different from should not?

Once the blank is filled, the motion itself must still be voted on. So people who do not want to donate anything do not have to try to fill the blank with $0.00. In fact that would not be in order. They can simply vote No on the motion, regardless of what value ends up in the blank. See §12:94, which reads in part:

Oh, I'd be happy to drop the word "borderline". I only used it because I had a (possibly false) memory of being corrected by somebody when I said it was not allowed. While many bylaws (including the sample in RONR) do prohibit holding multiple offices, there are a fair number that do not, and RONR takes pains to point out the proper way to elect people to multiple offices if the bylaws don't prohibit it. But president/vice-president, while it seems like an obvious error, could benefit from a more strenuous denunciation in the text.

I'm reading my Kindle versions on my Windows laptop.

Yes, thanks, found it at [3:16(1)n3]. I was searching in the agenda rules, and finding no joy. 🙂

Ah, I missed the word only, on first reading.

Do you mean in the updated version (12th ed.) of RONR? if so it is not still in there, because it was not in there in past editions. If your bylaws have such a rule, then it still applies unless your bylaws have been updated to remove it. But if your bylaws are silent on the matter, RONR says [§30] that this would require an incidental motion related to methods of voting. You need to be recognized and then say: I move that the vote be taken by ballot. Such motions require a second, are not debatable, are amendable, and require a majority vote. However there is something called a Division of the Assembly which can be demanded by one member [See §29]. this is done while the result is being announced, if a member doubts the results of a voice vote or a show of hands. The member simply says: Division! [or] I doubt the result of the vote! The chair retakes the vote, but by a rising vote or perhaps a counted rising vote, and not automatically by ballot.

No there is no such prohibition, but certain combinations are borderline absurd, like holding both president and vice president offices. However, there is a rule that if multiple offices are voted on a single ballot, such that members will not know the outcome for each office before voting on the next, then a member cannot be elected to more than one office per ballot, and a member who gets a majority for more than one office must choose one. Another election is then held for the office(s) that were declined. The member may then be elected to additional offices on those additional ballots. None of these restrictions are necessary if separate elections are held for each office, so that members know the results before voting on the next office. [46:31(1)]

It is not typically the case that the rationale for all the rules is spelled out in RONR, though it sometimes is. One method for determining why a given rule is a good idea is to amend the bylaws to eliminate that rule and then watch to see what disasters occur as a result. It shouldn't take long. Even so I can't in good conscience recommend this method.