Gary Novosielski

Indeed. I don't even see how you can have a board without a board, let alone a board within a board. Life goes on within you and without you.

Please post a new question as a new topic.

There is no need to revise your bylaws to include the VP succession to President. It is automatic and covered in RONR. As to the half term business, RONR says: "For purposes of determining eligibility to continue in office under such a provision, an officer who has served more than half a term is considered to have served a full term in that office." So if it's exactly a half term it doesn't count.

I don't see what the purpose of such a memo might be. I can think of several reasons that it would be unwise. But in any case, No, one member cannot demand the creation of such a memo. Anyone can make a main motion to create one, which would require a second and a majority vote. Personally, I'd vote No.

I'm also confused as to where the Vice President was, and why he didn't become president instantly. People who fill unexpired terms do not start the clock over again. If you elect someone to fill an office that has three months to go on the original term, the replacement only serves for the unexpired remainder of the term, i.e., three months. When calculating term limits, an officer who has served more than half a term is considered to have served one term. If he has served less than half a term, that does not count against any term limit.

The presiding officer's vote has more to it than "breaking" ties. The presiding officer may vote freely or abstain whenever his one vote would make a difference: to create or break a tie, to achieve or deny a 2/3 vote if that were the threshold. For a ballot vote, the presiding officer votes with everyone else. Unless your bylaws expressly create co-chair offices, you do not actually have co-chairs. Even if you do, you'll need to have a way to decide which chair presides at a given meeting. A meeting cannot have two chairs. It's patent nonsense, and completely unworkable. The presiding chair at that meeting would follow the rules for the presiding officer, and the "other" chair would simply be a member. Regardless, the rules in RONR provide for a strict one-person-one-vote rule for all except stock corporations, where votes depend on shares owned. You should figure out which of your chairs is the chair, and which is the vice-chair. By the way, how large is this committee? If it's not more than about a dozen, just use small-board rules and the voting problem goes away.

Well, #1 would seem to be contradicted by that language on P. 252: If there is no such possibility [that the votes could have affected the outcome], the results of the vote itself can be made invalid only if the point of order is raised immediately following the chair’s announcement of the vote. With #2, at least the chair goes on record. If it desired to have the assembly expressly go on record, a motion to bring discipline would accomplish the result, and arguably better. On #3, I agree, which is why I recommend it as a remedy for #2. I'm still left wondering if a chair has a duty to rule on a question that is, for that moment at least, moot. Others are free to weigh in, if still awake.

Yes, but... with or without a timekeeper, what then occurs is: The chair raps the gavel, and says "The time of the reporting member has expired; the member will be seated. The next item of business is...." This would occur on the chair's initiative, or as a result of being told by a timekeeper that the time had expired. But it's going to be the chair's job either way.

Okay, we agree that 2 is not applicable. So with 1, the dialog goes something like this MR. Y: Point of order! CHAIR: The young member will state his point of order. MR. Y: I rise to a point of order that at last month's elections,several youth members and I were improperly prevented from voting, though our votes could not have affected the outcome. CHAIR: The point of order is well taken. <cough> The next item of business is the candlelight parade of new officers and their.... Although the point is well taken, there is no remedy that can arise from the point of order itself. The election could have been declared void if the point had been raised immediately, but that was not the case. So we have a situation where, if a point of order is sustained, nothing happens. Yet if it is denied, nothing happens. This reminds me of a motion not to have a square dance. If it is lost, nothing happens; if it is adopted, nothing happens. Why could the motion be considered dilatory, while the point of order could not be? Is the chair required to rule on a point of order which, if sustained, has no effect? Should you claim that a ruling is required before any discipline can be imposed, I would be bound to disagree. A motion to censure or discipline, or even expel the members responsible could be made with no prior ruling. The merits of the allegation would be debated in connection with that motion. As you note, members could be expelled for a bar fight, yet no prior ruling that a fight occurred would be necessary.

Yes and no. Let's have a look at the language which, by the way, appears to be new in the 11th Ed. That's one case. The point of order is timely if it concerns the action taken in denying the vote. But if the outcome would not be affected, then the vote stands. The language apparently allows for the point to be sustained even the vote is still valid. And no further remedy is listed in this case. Now the other case: That's the case we have. There is no possibility that the votes would have affected the outcome, and the point was not raised immediately, so the action resulting from the vote cannot be invalidated. (There are other actions that can be taken, but they are separate and apart from the point of order.) Here again it appears that the point can somehow be sustained with respect to the denial of rights, but with no possibility of a remedy. I can't help but note that in this new paragraph titled REMEDY FOR VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO VOTE, the remedy, viz., invalidating the vote, is the only one contemplated. So if the point is sustained, what we have is a ruling that says: yes, the rights of members were violated, but there is no remedy. It seems to me that once it has been established that neither a favorable nor unfavorable ruling would result in any change in the status quo, the question is moot, and the chair is not required to rule any further. __________ I had written another reply, which did not appear to have been accepted, so I wrote this one. Upon posting, both replies appeared, so I have deleted the earlier reply, as this one is, I think, more on point. =GPN

I could probably argue either side of that, which suggests it may ultimately be a matter of local interpretation. But if nothing else, it points out yet again that bylaws need to be carefully crafted to say what they mean.

That's still pretty iffy. If the member wants a vote, or debate, or an opportunity to amend, or any other disposition, he should object when unanimous consent is sought. Division is a method to call into question the result of a vote. If no vote has taken place, and the question was decided without objection, I don't think Division would be appropriate. It would be a Good Thing if the chair would use the proper terminology and procedure. Acclamation has an actual meaning in RONR, but relating to electing an unopposed candidate without a vote, where the bylaws allow it.

I don't think I would make a thing out of it, especially as a formal correction, but you might have a word with the Secretary off line and see if you can get agreement that way first. Your options are still open if that doesn't work.

It could, if it had said so, but what it said was 2/3 vote of..., and not vote of 2/3 of.... When I see 2/3 right next to vote, I generally presume that to mean a 2/3 vote, unless the word entire or whole appears somewhere in the neighborhood. Sometimes that can get a little questionable when the of such-and-so body doesn't appear to add anything. But in this case I think it's clear that what's meant is a 2/3 vote, and that it must occur in each of two different bodies. Standard disclaimer regarding my non-membership applies.

That's as may be, but none of it is mentioned on P. 252

I've read that language, but while it does appear to guarantee timeliness of a point of order, it is only with respect to the action taken as a result of the vote, and not to the disembodied notion of eligibility itself. The question is, were members rights violated and if so, what shall be the remedy? It says that in the event the outcome was not affected, no remedy is appropriate, but those affected have options to make other motions. Still, Reconsideration is out of the question, and I've never heard of a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted being applied to an election. Even so, that would take place after the ruling on a remedy, and I'd be surprised if anyone tried it. The argument that those denied their rights might have persuaded others in debate presumes that the Youth Members were denied the right to debate, when we don't even know that there was debate. Also, that section says that it is never too late to raise such a point of order, but does not say that is never too early. And I think a point of order with respect to what might happen next year is too early. Of course someone could raise a similar point on the very next motion, but at least it doesn't require repeating the election.

i think that would be highly advisable, but I don't think that's an option for a chair in the process of dealing with a point of order.

I think I would rule that since this election is complete, a point of order questioning eligibility is no longer timely as it pertains to a past election, and not yet timely as it pertains to future elections. It might work.

No. First, there's no "we" involved. The chair rules on points of order. Second, the chair does not refuse to consider the point of order. The chair isn't allowed to ignore points of order. The chair listens carefully to the point of order, because the exact nature of the point raised makes a difference, and then, having considered it, issues a ruling on whether the point is, or is not, "well taken", along with the reasons for ruling that way. It's also advisable to read up on the section dealing with Appeals in case two members wish to raise an appeal from the chair's decision.

Sure, but this would still require previous notice so people don't show up at the normal starting time and discover the election is over, no?

The recommendations in RONR, accurately cited by Mr. Brown, are just that--recommendations for what your bylaws should say. But unless someone took the advice and include those provisions in the bylaws, they're just the answer to a trivia question. You need to read the bylaws, and the first thing to look for is by whom the nominating committee gets appointed. If it was really by the general membership, how did the whole executive council end up on the committee?

Only one original main motion may be on the floor at any time. What is the nature of these other four motions? Are they amendments to the original main motion? If not, they will have to wait until the main motion is disposed of. If they are amendments, then only one of them may be considered at a time while the original main motion is pending. Maybe if we had some more details we could be of more help.

Contents of meetings held in executive session must be kept confidential. Conversations and e-mails outside the context of a meeting are not covered by rules in RONR. If you have no bylaws or standing rules on the subject, some duties of office which this person could be found to be in dereliction of, or some prior agreement with the recipient that it will be kept confidential then your options are limited. The subject of discipline is covered in great detail in Chapter XX of RONR. Even in the absence of custom rules, any organization has the right to discipline members whose behavior rises (or perhaps falls) to the level of "conduct injurious to the organization or its purposes". Whether this does, and what has to happen next, is not a decision you will be making alone. Are others as convinced as you are that the forwarding of this message was improper?

Great news!

Yes, it's wise not to rule on more than is necessary. You can't be overruled on something you didn't rule on.