Gary Novosielski

The concept of classifications in this context is not something that is covered in RONR. What would knowing the "classification" of this person allow you to do? What are you trying to accomplish?

It doesn't look like it. Many bylaws have language that explicitly says a majority "of the remaining members, even if less than a quorum", but apparently yours don't.

The election of that one person is affected. Anyone properly elected is unaffected by the eligibility (or lack thereof) of somebody else. Even if all the offices to be elected appear on one ballot, that still represents a separate election for each office, and the rules are applied to each of these multiple elections individually.

No. In order for the president to be included in a committee ex-officio (automatically as president), the bylaws would have to say so explicitly. Sample language when this is desired is: "The president shall be, ex-officio, a member of all committees with the exception of the nominating committee." RONR recommends that the president have nothing to do with the operation of the nominating committee. But in your case, unless your bylaws authorize it which, from what we've seen so far, they don't, the president already has nothing to do with the nominating committee. Check your bylaws of course, but typically, the nominating committee is appointed by and reports to the general membership, not to any officers. In that case, only the general membership can issue it any instructions.

The threshold will not change if the motion is renewed (moved again) at a future meeting.

What rule would be suspended? There is no rule in RONR that prohibits the chair from entering into debate, so a motion to suspend the rules should be ruled out of order. Even if such a rule existed and was suspended it would remain inadvisable, and all the reasons for that would continue to exist.

There is no rule in RONR that would require notification. If your bylaws do not specify a timetable for calling the meeting, the rule is that a "reasonable" amount of time is required, i.e. not so soon that people would be inconvenienced, yet not delayed without cause.

In the general case, the general membership can overturn a decision of the board if it has not yet been completed. However, if the board suspended a member, that action is considered complete at once. Still, it is unusual for a board to have the power to suspend members. Are you certain your bylaws grant the board that power?

I think it does include all "possible" voting members, but as it is not "possible" for a vacant seat to vote, my answer is also 15. One of the rules of interpretation says that the specific overrides the general, so that while most votes require only a majority of those present and actually voting, the specific case of electing a speaker requires a majority of all members who can vote.

RONR only considers one type of member, called simply a "member". Members have the right to vote. So there are no rules in RONR that apply to "non-voting members". Any such rules would have to be adopted by your organization, in its bylaws, special rules of order, or standing rules, which we cannot interpret here. I would only point out that in RONR, the advice is that members should not vote on a question in which they have a personal or pecuniary interest not in common with other members. But they cannot be compelled to abstain from voting. Nothing is said about leaving a discussion, only voting. And since non-voting members presumably cannot vote, I don't see how they could possibly run afoul of this advice.

And three readings? Good grief.

You can't rescind a rescision. The motion was adopted, and then "unadopted", so it's not in effect at this point. To reädopt it will require a new motion similar (or identical) to the original.

I fully agree that any rules regarding the use of proxies will not be found between the covers of RONR. In the (in my view, unfortunate) event that proxies are allowed, I would expect a valid signed proxy form without further instructions would typically entitle the holder to vote freely on more than one question that might come up, so it would not double as a ballot. I was also unclear just what the case was here. It sounded like the proxy showed up among the ballots cast, but I wouldn't put money on it. Advice to @Karin: Read the first sentence above and stop there. 🙄

Executive session minutes are approved only in executive session (and the minutes of that short session may be approved at that same session. It makes sense to me that if they contain sensitive material adequate provisions for maintaining there secrecy would be followed. However, in my experience, which may differ from yours, executive session minutes rarely contain much in the way of sensitive information. This is because in my organization, motions were usually adopted outside of executive session. The only part that needed to remain confidential was what was said by members during the executive session. And since discussion is not included in the minutes, that left virtually nothing for the minutes to say, except that business of a particular general class was discussed, after which a motion to come out of executive session was adopted.

If this is truly a proxy, and not an absentee ballot, then the person to whom the proxy was assigned may cast the vote as he/she wishes. However, I'm confused why, if ballots were being counted, a proxy would be mixed in, as a proxy is not a ballot. The proxy is an authorization to cast an additional ballot. But apparently the proxy holder did not cast an additional ballot, and instead put the proxy in the ballot box without indicating a name. This still sounds like an abstention to me, and if so, it should be treated as a blank piece of paper, not as a ballot cast. It does not sound like a valid reason to invalidate the completed vote.

🐊

I don't see why you would need a proposed agenda nor approval of it. Didn't the call of the meeting specifically describe the only item(s) that would be considered at the meeting, as the rules require?

No. The bylaws probably contain specific rules for their own amendment, probably a required advance notice of any proposed amendments and a vote threshold that must be met, possibly with other requirements. These rules must be followed to the letter.

No it is not. The rules in RONR require all members to be present, physically, in the same place. You could have rules in your bylaws to allow this, but if you don't, you can't.

Where did the question go? Don't do that please.

But in this particular scenario there is no opportunity for a board meeting during that interval of doubt, so the question would seem to be of academic interest only.

So in this case, the absence of two seconds would be required. 🙂

It's up to your society to interpret its own bylaws. In a group I chaired, two readings were required, but if amendments were agreed to, it did not require additional readings. Those with interest in the outcome were deemed to have received sufficient notice. As far as RONR is concerned, once a question is placed before the assembly, the original mover loses control over it. The only way to add any of language would be through the normal amendment process available to any member, and subject to majority approval.

There's nothing particularly sacrosanct about notifying nominees. I think if there is time, simply do the best you can to follow the rules as closely as is possible. Without a time machine, repeating the process would not seem to improve matters at all.

Yes, as soon as the election is complete, the former directors leave office, and your rule says the new ones take office at adjournment. Since the directors have no official duties during a general meeting, it's not really important exactly when the transition takes place. If the office of president changes hands during this process you could do a little "passing of the gavel" at the end of the meeting, with the new president entertaining the motion to adjourn. But if the identity of the new president is uncertain, pending the subsequent organizational meeting of the board, then that's not feasible.