Gary Novosielski

Check your bylaws to see if elections are to be held by ballot vote, and if so whether there is an exception in the case where the number of candidates does not exceed the number to be elected. If the bylaws require a ballot without such an exception, then a ballot vote must be held. As with any ballots, there should be space provided for write-in votes. If a ballot is not required, then the chair may simply announce that those four are elected by acclamation.

Ex-officio members are neither elected nor appointed directly. They are members by virtue of an office they hold, possibly one assigned by some outside entity. It seems likely to me that this Alumni Representative is selected by the Alumni Parents association, and it is they who would have to replace him. Your group could presumably request that the Alumni Rep be replaced, but the final decision may be out of your hands. If this is true (and someone in that group should know) then whoever aspires to that position, presuming he is a member of the Alumni Parents, should take up the question in that group. While this answer is based on the information in your question, I don't know what your bylaws say, nor what the bylaws of the Alumni Parents say, if anything. So consider it my best guess.

If the vote in favor of the motion is tied, then the voting body has decided, and the answer is No.

Unless your bylaws are quite unusual, the board is elected by, and subordinate to, the general membership. Elections take place at general membership meetings over which the board has no control. In this case, not only can the board not cancel an election, but can't overturn any decision of the membership. (It sounds to me like an election is overdue, and some board members need to be voted out. But that's just me. and of course see disclaimer below)

Another "feature" that makes the forum less usable. <sigh> _____ I'm confused by the phrase "regularly called" which appears to me to be an oxymoron. In language I'm familiar with, meetings are referred to as regular meetings or properly called meetings, the latter referring to special meetings which are alternatively referred to as called meetings. A called meeting is presumably not a regular meeting.

The rule says a member has no right to do it. I'm sure the rule is suspendable, but the rule still says no. So I think the president ruled correctly, and apparently the ruling was not appealed from.

Per RONR, however, a person who is elected, if present at the meeting, may decline if it is done immediately.

RONR does not mention Installing Officers, and prohibits proxies to the maximum extent allowed by law. So if the rules in RONR apply, I'd have to say No. Your rules may have some provisions that would allow it, and if so, that answer could change. Perhaps you could describe the situation more fully which might fit some analogous situation in RONR.

RONR does not address "operations committees". In RONR there are two types of committees, Standing and Special (or Select). A standing committee is one that continues in existence and usually is assigned a particular class of business, and may have multiple items under consideration. A special committee is one that is created to deal with one particular question. When it rises and reports its recommendations to the parent body, it ceases to exist.

A new election would allow for adding new nominees.

No, the next highest vote getters would not be eligible unless they had support on a majority of ballots, which is unlikely since the membership was restricted from voting for more than 13 spots. I believe a special election would be required. Here's an idea that was not done, but I'd be curious to hear others' reactions: I think it would have been possible to allow the members to vote for up to 15 persons, in the anticipation that the board might be expanded in the near future, with the understanding that only the top 13 vote getters would be elected (presuming they had a majority) and the next two (presuming they had a majority) would only be seated if and when the size of the board was increased.

I don't see where the bylaws prohibit write-in votes. Is that in some other part?

It should be emphasized, I think, that none of these informal gatherings are, in fact, meetings, within the meaning of RONR. No actual business in the form of motions or votes can be done at these gatherings, and no formal decisions can be reached on behalf of the organization.

A non-member may be permitted to address the board with its permission by a majority vote, except that, A non-member may only be permitted to participate in debate (discussion) on a motion by a 2/3 vote, Suspending the Rules.

The procedure to change the bylaws is usually contained within the bylaws. I can't easily think how that procedure could be objected to. Was it by a Point of Order? If so, the chair should probably rule the point not well taken.

That sounds like a germane amendment, to add a public hearing before signing the contract, but you'd need to be quite specific about what effect, if any, the public hearing was going to have. If you simply add language for holding a meeting prior to signing, then no matter what happened at the meeting, when it was over the contract would be signed. It is non uncommon and not improper to amend things so as to delay their execution. And although there is no parliamentary "trick" to forbid the amendment, the normal method to defeat it is to debate against it and vote it down.

I think that this would be categorized as a "correction" to the draft minutes, and as such would require a majority. A "correction" is effectively a motion to Amend, and would share its characteristics.

You can allow non-members to comment (but not in debate¹) by a majority vote at any meeting without any rule. If you want to make it a rule, then you can pass it as a Special Rule of Order, and it becomes one. Or you can write it in the bylaws, and it becomes a bylaw. __________ ¹ Although the rule against non-members speaking in debate is suspendible.

Some organizations have rules against a board member having a business relationship with the organization. Some don't. RONR itself does not have such a rule. Your bylaws would be the place to look. Also there may be state regulations regarding non-profits that addresses the question. And of course the board could simply vote against approving any contract with a board member, should such a question come before them. RONR does say that a member with a pecuniary interest not in common with other members should not vote on questions regarding that interest. But it does not outright prohibit such a vote.

To achieve a 2/3 vote, a candidate must have approval on 2/3 of the ballots cast. Since voters may, in this case, vote for all the candidates, this is not difficult to achieve.

It would seem that the lack of a No choice would assure that every candidate achieves unanimous approval, even without the improper all-or-nothing instruction that was originally proposed, so long as everyone got at least a single vote.

While the main motion is pending, a member, obtaining the floor, can move That the vote on this motion be taken by ballot. The motion requires a second, is not debatable, and needs a majority vote to be adopted. See RONR 12th ed. §30 for more details.

Then how do you distinguish a No vote from an abstention?

Yes, but the OP iseemed to indicate that their structure did not include a VP. Beyond that I'm unwilling to speculate, having not read their bylaws.