Gary Novosielski

A 2/3 vote if no previous notice was given. It's too late to do so at the previous meeting, but it can go out with the call of the meeting, With previous notice, it's a majority vote. Or, at any time, a majority of the entire membership (of the board, presuming it's a board meeting). Anyone of those three will suffice. If everyone shows up and everyone votes, that would satisfy the third choice so a majority of the entire board would be easier to get than a 2/3 vote.

This would not be the first example of poorly drafted bylaws having unintended consequences. If all you're concerned about is making sure that members understand these consequences, there's no particular need to explain that in the bylaws themselves, since that's already what they say. It would be sufficient to merely point this out in a memo or newsletter to members, reminding them of this rule. If, on the other hand, you want to modify the rule to provide a way for people in your situation to retain membership, then it will be necessary to amend the bylaws, which means following your specific procedure, typically contained in the bylaws, providing for their own amendment.

Since the secretary did, apparently, send out the usual meeting notice, in the usual form, I'd say that it, and not the newsletter, was intended to be the actual notice of the meeting. But since it was not sent 10 days in advance, it was not a proper meeting notice, presuming I understand the bylaws language.

:And I didn't see a location listed, which is one of the requirements.

I don't think a motion to Reconsider would be in order, as the matter can be reached by simply renewing the motion.

No. If any and all motions were disallowed, there would be little point in having a presiding officer or, for that matter, holding a meeting in the first place. RONR says: If the chair persists in refusing to properly conduct the meeting, a member should move to "declare the chair vacant"--if necessary by repeating the motion three times and putting it to a vote standing in his place as described above. The motion requires a second and a two-thirds vote to remove the chair. A chair pro-tem would then be elected.

If the rules in RONR apply, motions are moved during a meeting, by one member, even if submitted in writing. If you have no rule in your bylaws allowing motions to be submitted by multiple members, and/or before a meeting begins, these practices would have the status of custom. RONR says:

I think so. If the bylaws were amended to strike the sentence quoted above, then the duties of the secretary would be as described in the parliamentary authority. But I don't think I'd point that out too loudly, or someone might want to insert language explicitly saying that the Secretary may ignore the rules in RONR.

What the law invariably says is that the regulators may regulate by writing regulations, which have the force of law, unless a judge says otherwise. I would, therefore, modify my advice above not to believe what others tell you, and suggest that if one or more of those others is a judge, who tells you what the law says, you could hardly be blamed for accepting it. You may also wish to accept what an attorney says, but not if he or she is being paid by someone else. Correct, they are also gas stations.

Is this a trick question? But seriously, yes it should be.

RONR prohibits voting by e-mail, unless you have custom rules authorizing it in your bylaws. And if you do, then you would follow those rules, since RONR has none.

This is why RONR says that a motion is not in order if accepting it or defeating it has the same result. The motion to deny failed, so as with any failed motion, nothing happens. But if it had passed, nothing still would have happened, Voting not to do something can be accomplished by not making any motion. There may be custom rules that apply to your specific case, but if the rules in RONR apply, motions should always be phrased as a choice to do something, not to do nothing.

Do they contain any exception for discussion of something like "legal matters" or "matters that could open the board to legal liability"? If so, then speaking generally, and depending on what this discipline was related to, there might be times when such an exemption would apply. To determine if this is true in your particular case, for a particular matter, consult an attorney.

What does your Sunshine Law say?

Well, I haven't read your Sunshine regulations, but if it's a personnel matter, that's usually included as an exception. Have you actually read the language? If you're talking about the discipline of a board member, and it fits no exception category, then it may be something the legislature thinks would benefit from some Sunshine.

But a member can stand up and say "Point of Order: This motion is out of order!"

I may have misunderstood--which side of this conflict are you on? Are you looking for a way to ensure that the chair does not prevail, or are you looking for a way to pass the motion, notwithstanding the conflict with the bylaws?

Did you see Greg Goodwiller's answer above, which answered that question rather completely? I.e., a Point of Order, potentially followed by an Appeal.

I don't know what "something in an entry" means. But if you have a state regulation that says only certain topics may be discussed in executive session, then no other topics may be discussed. State law supersedes the rules in RONR--read it carefully, and don't accept what others tell you it says. The regulation may also state how the motion to go into executive session must be phrased, what motions can or cannot be made in executive session (even for allowed topics), and may have rules on how long and under what conditions the minutes remain secret. If members stray from the allowed topic or, if the regulations so require, from the scope of the notice given in the motion, and if a friendly reminder goes unheeded, you should protect yourself by raising a point of order that this discussion violates the regulation, and then follow up to make certain that your objection and the chair's ruling are recorded in the minutes.

Unless I missed it, we still don' know if you are a member of this board. Your "job" may vary, depending.

I won't.

Another way of determining a majority: To be elected, a candidate must receive more votes than all the other candidates put together.

No, you don't need to ask Minnie and Goofy anything, since they weren't elected, and they were never nominated, and even if they were nominated, accepting is not actually a thing. There's no need to hold a new election (technically just a second ballot) because Mr. Duck received a majority on the first ballot. If there were enough write-ins to deny Duck a majority, but not enough for one of the write-ins to be elected, then a second ballot would be required, but there's still no need to ask anybody any questions. The only question that needs to be answered is whether the person actually elected will accept the office. And if they're present at the meeting, the answer is immediate.

I seek recognition to offer an alliterative point of personal propane privilege and pun punishment. [CAUTION: Incorrigible punster; do not incorrige.]

RONR does not have any rules that directly apply to your President's authority to have checks issued. These rules would have to be found in your bylaws or standing rules. However, even if the rules allow the President to distribute funds without prior approval, I doubt they would permit such an action in the face of an explicitly adopted motion by the membership to the contrary. Interpreting and applying them, however, is up to your organization to do. Check your bylaws regarding discipline of officers and members If there's nothing there, RONR has an entire chapter (Ch. XX) regarding discipline. Also, check FAQ #20 here. Even if you don't want to remove the President, it's good to know the full lay of the land before proceeding.