Gary Novosielski

No, nor is s/he even permitted to explain why. That would constitute debate during voting, which is prohibited. If you intend to abstain and want the others present to know why, the time to make that announcment is during debate upon the motion, after being properly recognized.

While we're at it, it might help to note what would have been the proper motion (usually the best course) in situations like this, which could have avoided all the counting of days and defining of sessions. When a motion requires more information before the body can intelligently vote on it, it should be referred to a committee, with instructions to research relevant questions, and report back with the information, possibly with recommendations for disapproval of the motion, or approval, possibly with amendments.

There is currently no downloadable version of the 11th ed. But it is available on CD. See: www.robertsrules.com

No member may be forced to vote.

On school boards it is typical that a member may not also be an employee, so the question never comes up. Whatever you custom may be, it is the written rules in your bylaws, and RONR that apply. And the rules in RONR say that members have the right to attend meetings, speak in debate, and to vote. RONR does recommend that members with a pecuniary interest (not in common with other members) in the outcome of a motion should refrain from voting on it, but they cannot be forced to do so, and even if they do, they may still attend and vote.

What business do you have excluding voting members from the meeting?

No. A chairman means one chairman. Co-anythings would have to be provided for in your bylaws, and in my view would be a grave mistake.

That's rubbish. Special Rules of Order supersede RONR, as do the rules in your bylaws. But policies and procedures that violate your bylaws (which by inclusion means RONR as well), in fact any motions that conflict with the bylaws are null and void. And new rules cannot be created simply by breaking existing rules. Custom carries weight as long as it does not violate existing rules. But custom falls to the ground in the face of a written rule.

Unless you have some provision in your bylaws to the contrary, members can vote the instant they become members.

No. The fact that you've been doing something wrong for years does not make it right. The fact that you have nothing in your bylaws about it means that the rules in RONR apply, and RONR prohibits it. RONR prohibits e-mail meetings because they do not meet the requirements for a deliberative assembly, and the rules in RONR would be almost impossible to apply successfully. If you want to authorized them, you must explicitly do so in your bylaws, and probably pass special rules of order that apply to e-mail meetings. How, for example, does one request recognition? How do you hold a secret ballot? How can the chair call someone to order? Since a bylaws change would be necessary, whatever the vote and other requirements you have for changing your bylaws would then be the requirements for adding e-mail meetings. A majority vote certainly would not be enough.

That's a 102 year old book you got there. But the rules on calling a committee meeting are still similar. The question on dissolving committees depends on whether it is a standing or special (select/ad hoc) committee. Standing committee membership (not just the chairmanship) ends when new officers are elected. Since this was a committee created in November, it would appear to be a special committee. But then how could it have had a chairman since 2012? Something is confusing here.

No. If voters don't think it's a good idea, they will presumably not vote for both.

Please post new questions as a new topic.

Merci.

Is there some part of your bylaws that that requires the secretary to distribute draft minutes? If not, Is it your expectation that the language above would create that requirement? What if the next meeting is a special meeting, at which the secretary would presumably not be distributing draft minutes (unless you forgot to include that exception in your bylaws. Or perhaps forgot to define special meetings at all? Was there something wrong with the previous notice requirements in RONR that you think needs fixing?

A meeting cannot be considered "properly called" unless all members are notified that it is taking place. Unless the meeting was a regular meeting, or a "properly called" meeting, then it wasn't a meeting, and any business transacted is null and void.

Indeed. It seems to me that if the society felt that 29 days was close enough, the bylaws would read 29, thereby affording someone the opportunity to suggest that 28 was good enough.

Still, this is the RONR forum. The closest rule in RONR would tell you that for any ballot that is deemed questionable by the tellers, the question of its validity should be put to the assembly, by majority vote. That gets everyone off the hook, when you can't identify a rule that clearly applies.

I think the most concise form would be in the tinted pages, Table II., under the column Vote Required for Adoption

Where is this "committee"? It sounds like you're talking about the board, but it's not clear if you're talking about the employment board, and whether this is actually a board or in the nature of a committee. A board has only the powers granted to it in the bylaws.

If the rules in RONR apply: It is not in order to agree in advance, nor can the chair refuse. While that one special motion is being considered, any member can seek recognition and make the incidental motion that the vote on the main motion be taken by ballot. This motion requires a second; is not debatable; is amendable, for example, to specify a different voting method; and, requires a majority vote.

I especially liked the part about having a vote of those voting members who were voting.

That would be bad, but at least they could try writing in the names where the names that were not listed were not listed.

By "the public" do you mean people who are not members of the organization? Is this, in fact, a public body?

There is a big difference between "empowered to decide" and "recommend to (dis)approve". And you've used both terms, and it's not clear which one is the case.