Gary Novosielski

But that's the former.

Against enforcing return on net assets?

I bet not even the chairman of the nominating committee could answer those.

I agree. You seemed to be suggesting the opposite in the prior message.

I think the more carefree the person, the more likely they are to use neither, and go for the em-dash instead.

I don't know of a requirement that a polling place must be inside the meeting room/hall itself.

I'm not sure which side of the issue that puts you on. The last sentence seems to suggest that the precise method to be used is an unimportant consideration. It's certainly true that listing the method, if known, can be useful. But the question that arose was: what if, at the meeting it is determined that the desired action must use a different type of motion than was originally thought proper. Can the switch be made on the fly, given that the notice properly described the question to be considered.

❌

Since the bylaws presumably require a 2/3 vote for adoption, the use of a voice vote was improper to begin with, since it's not possible to reliably determine whether a 2/3 vote was achieved. Unfortunately, if no point of order, and appeal was raised in a timely manner, it's too late now.

Sure, why not?

Very cool.

The second party did not receive a majority vote, and was not elected. If it turns out that the "winning" candidate is ruled not to be eligible, which will require a point of order, then you'll need to hold a new election. The runner-up can run again, of course, and may yet get a majority vote.

The term you're looking for is probably "consent agenda". It's referred to in RONR as a "consent calendar".

When a custom, even one followed for years, conflicts with a written rule or bylaw, the written rule takes precedence, and the custom falls to the ground.

I sympathize, but the answers to your questions are not likely to be found within the pages of RONR.

And for that matter, once the next item of business is begun, it's too late to cast, withdraw, or change a vote.

It's certainly not reasonable to suggest that at the moment the bylaws were amended all historical rejection decisions of the board were reversed. But it is quite reasonable to suggest that their previous decisions would not affect new applications.

I think the chair should have discretion in how much formality to employ, based on the perceived need at the time. Sensing how much discussion without a motion is too much is a good example. When it is obvious that a given dead horse has been well and truly beaten, the chair should encourage the assembly to propose a motion or move on. While RONR permits some discussion without a motion, this is not license to filibuster.

Yes, it is one of the principles of interpretation, but in this case I don't think it applies, as there are ample Expressios in RONR that the chair can participate fully just as any other member, under "small board" rules.

I think Messrs. Martin and Kapur have this right. Unless there are rules we don't know about that specify how long a rejection by the board continues to disqualify an applicant, I would assume that the decision applies to that current application and does not continue beyond that point. As long as there is no other rule prohibiting an applicant from renewing an application for a certain period of time, the subsequent application is presumed to be valid. As board approval was no longer required at that point, the earlier rejection by the board is of historical interest only.

Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius?

Usually not, but you'd need to provide a lot more information to know for sure. In some special cases it is.

Only if the president is permitted to get away with it. File this under "ripped from the headlines".

No, it certainly was not proper. Where was the chair when this nonsense was going on?

Well, if the original assertion was "we doan need no stinkin' rules", then calling that a very bad idea is sorta opposite, if not particularly extreme. 🙂