Gary Novosielski

When the minutes are up for approval, a correction like this can be pointed out, and probably agreed to by unanimous consent. If the error is not noticed until after the minutes have been approved, then a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted (§35) is the thing to use.

One person elected to more than one office at the same time must choose one of the offices, and a new election is held for those not chosen. But this rule does not apply if each office is elected in separate ballots, so that the voters know the results for one office before voting on the next. If the new election is required, the person originally elected can then be elected to an additional office, if the bylaws don't have a rule against holding multiple offices. Some combinations are common, such as secretary/treasurer, while others make little sense, such as one person being both president and vice president, or president and secretary. Still, RONR does not explicitly prohibit those, apparently presuming that members will have enough sense not to elect people in nonsensical arrangements. One is free to hope.

If the position is not filled then the election is not completed, and continues until it is. There's no loophole, sorry.

Yeah, I've seen sixty or more. 🍊

So it could be prohibited only if nobody wanted to do it anyway? Is that appreciably different from not being suspendible at all?

Yes, in order if no one is seeking to make additional nominations, not debatable, and requires a 2/3 vote. But if closed, reopening nominations requires only a majority vote.

If the rules in RONR apply (which they presumably would if nothing else is specified) then proxy voting is prohibited to the greatest extent allowed by law. Also the "governing" board has no special influence in general business meetings. The board is subordinate to the general membership.

No, definitely not. Past practice/custom is the lowest level of all, and yields to all ordinary motions, standing rules, special rules of order, the bylaws, the constitution, and applicable statutes. You should raise a Point of Order (§23) and be prepared to Appeal (§24) an unfavorable ruling.

This is not the method used in RONR, so it's not possible to answer the question as posed. When someone is finished speaking the chair recognizes one of the members seeking recognition at that time. (In some cases two lines are formed at two microphones, one for those in support and one for those opposed to the motion, so that pro and con views will alternate.) Alternating sides is is something RONR favors in general, so if the chair knows who is for or against the motion, they should be recognized alternately if possible. In general, speeches are limited to two per member and the second one only after no one who has yet to make their first speech is is seeking recognition. The count would be reset for an amendment, as you have described, and the previous count restored when returning to discussion of the main motion. But these things are primarily accomplished on the fly, not by setting up a queue at the start. That would require a bylaws provision or special rule of order adopted by your membership. I can see some advantages for doing it that way, but there are also drawbacks. It may be that one of the early speakers raises an important point that others wish to follow up on, but now with the queue preset, they will never get the opportunity. If someone wishes to propose an amendment, they may never get the chance. Some who have a place in line will find that by the time their turn comes up the remarks they had planned to make are no longer relevant. It's not an easy subject to work out. Especially virtually. Speaking of which, unless your bylaws allow for "virtual" or electronic meetings, where people are not gathered in the same physical location, then such meetings are prohibited.

The powers of the board must be spelled out in the bylaws, and the board has no powers beyond those. Some boards are given general authority over the affairs of the club in the interval between membership meetings, but can be overruled by the membership. It would be unusual for a board to have the power to expel members. If they don't have that power, then the membership does. So check your bylaws and see what the board is really allowed to do. The membership, at a membership meeting can, by a 2/3 vote, demand that the board produce and read any of its minutes. Let us know what your bylaws say about your board, and we might be able to put you on the right track.

If they run and lose, they are clearly the immediate past president. Why would you think they would forfeit anything?

If the rules in RONR apply, then Yes. If there are any anti-nepotism rules they would have to be in your bylaws. RONR doesn't have any.

Not merely present, but present and voting.

It violates no rule in RONR. If the president departs, the vice president would assume the chair. Presumably in that event the vice president's name would be called last in the roll call.

Maybe we need a §0:0, which says "All rules that do not exist anywhere are incorporated in this section by reference as if fully set forth herein--somehow."

The BOD is incorrect. It would be a bylaws change. And the bylaws are rules--usually the highest level rules of an organization.

Since a majority is more than half, ties are handled the same as any other vote that is less than a majority.

I'm not sure what the charge of your election committee is. RONR doesn't ever require one. RONR suggests using a Nominating Committee to solicit candidates and report them to the assembly, but after that, the assembly itself conducts the election. And if candidates are running unopposed (and the bylaws do not require a ballot vote) the chair may declare them elected by acclamation.

It is a little weird, but I don't think it can cause much trouble in practice. Now if they had tried to collect fees for an ordinance that didn't exist, that's definitely a problem.

I know that was the intent, but I think it could be argued that it would constitute "a part of his speech", i.e., the first part. I've seen thinner arguments than that eat up a half hour of a meeting. 😜

It is incorrect that the chair only votes in the event of a tie. Don't confuse the rules in RONR with the rules in the US Senate. On a ballot vote, the chair votes along with everyone else. On any other type of vote, the chair would not vote unless that one vote would affect the outcome: It could be to break a tie and pass the motion, or to create a tie and defeat the motion. It could be to achieve a 2/3 vote or to deny a 2/3 vote. And in any other case where one vote would matter, the chair may vote freely. So effectively even though the chair normally does not vote, it's only when one vote would not have changed the outcome anyway.

Wouldn't that second example make it impossible ever to move the Previous Question?

The right to attend a meeting does not automatically grant the right to a copy of the minutes.

Yes, that's why I suggested it might not be well-taken. If the illegality were other than procedural it would not be, but at least it would still get in the minutes without needing a second or a majority agreement.

I concur with Mr. Kapur, and if all efforts fail, a Point of Order can be raised, either that the dissent must be recorded, or that the main motion violates the bylaws, or violates the law. Even if the point is ruled not well taken, and even if that ruling sustained on Appeal, the Point of Order would be recorded in the minutes and provide evidence of your dissent.