Gary Novosielski

I think it is unnecessary to speculate on whether the rule extends to officers. Since the only officers of an organization are those specified in the bylaws, there can be no co-anything unless that office is specified in the bylaws. And the principle of one-person-one-vote is explicit. Half votes do not exist unless the bylaws so provide. In any case, both of those variations remain Bad Ideas.

Okay, 85%.

Just stating something doesn't make it a rule, no matter how clearly stated it is, or how often.

There is no restriction in RONR that board members must be members of the society in general. Any such restrictions would have to be in the bylaws. As a practical matter, in organizations that do not customarily have non-member directors, such a rule is seldom necessary because a non-member would be unlikely to gain election.

No, but it is up to the assembly to reprimand, censure, or otherwise discipline him. It doesn't just happen by itself.

That is what I presume, at least as a starting point. If the secretary brings her own recording device for her convenience in taking minutes, then until someone makes some claim to the contrary, it's her property. I'm not saying the society has no claim that it could assert regarding ownership of the recording, but unless and until it has passed some rule about it, and made the secretary aware of the rule, I don't think it can force the secretary to provide, preserve, or even delete copies of the recordings. It could, of course, prohibit her from making the recordings in the first place.

The language there is fairly ambiguous, and I would be loath to interpret it. The chair may have been wrong to rule a motion out of order after discussion had begun, but if no Appeal (§24) was raised at the time, the decision stands. A point of order would probably not be timely any more. Whether it is even in order to renew it is in question, because rulings of the chair that have not been overturned by appeal serve as precedent. I have no idea what to make of the concept that the ruling of the board is always subject to ruling by the memberhship. What then are we to make of the language "for decision" if a decision either way results in the same outcome?

Then the assembly would need the permission of the Vice President to appoint a chairman pro-tem by a majority vote, and without such permission, a 2/3 vote. But I remind you that the corrrect person to preside over elections is the current president, whether nominated for an office or not.

In certain contexts NOT described in RONR, but possibly applicable to your organization, state administrative codes implement a so-called "doctrine of necessity" which allows otherwise conflicted members to vote if their recusal would leave the board with an insufficient number of voting members to reach a decision. Whether or how this might apply to you is unknown to me. I mention this only as a suggestion for research beyond this forum. Under the rules in RONR, the matter would never come up, as restrictions apply only to cases of personal or pecuniary interests not shared with other members, which I'm not certain is the case here, and are voluntary on the part of the member, who can in no instance be forced to abstain.

No, I believe that the distinction between And and Or, while it can be critical in other contexts, is not an important difference once the natural terms are over. The point is that their terms, if not ended prematurely, continue until a successor, at the very least, exists.

Caution: If the rules in RONR apply, the board would have no authority to receive, grant, deny, or implement "challenges" to elections conducted by the general membership. This suggests that you may have customized rules in your bylaws that supersede those in RONR, and will need to carefully read all relevant rules in your own documents before applying the general rules in RONR.

Is there no Vice President?

Okay, I may have bent that to the point of failure. To make things clear, here's the actual language: That's a bit unusual, though, because many points of order may interrupt a member who is speaking. Beyond the current meeting, a point of order relating to quorum is subject to the continuing breach test as with any other point of order.

That's a wise move. It's nice to know that you could have saved a tiny bit of paper by simply saying "in writing" which would accomplish exactly the same thing. But the advantage of having the rule right there in front of you is that it's, well... right there in front of you. Well done.

No, the practice of the president having anything to do with the nominating committe, including serving on it ex-officio, is strongly deprecated by RONR.

Thanks, Dan, I hadn't considered the side-effects of an abstension.

I meant that "planning and discussion" were debate, and not in order without a motion. I contend that presenting of reports is "business" not in the nature of a measure to obtain a quorum, and as such is not in order at an inquorate meeting. Others may disagree, but that's what RONR appears to say. Edited to add: Here is the procedure from RONR §40: Notice that if the chair follows that procedure, the only business in order after the chair's announcement is to entertain one of the motions allowed. Thus there is no way to reach any other item in the order of business, such as committee reports..

There is no rule in RONR either way. If the secretary is using her own recorder for her own convenience, she can do with her personal property what she wishes. If the board wants to set a standing rule establishing a retention policy for these recordings, it may do so, but I think it will need to provide the recorder, in order to consider the recordings its property.

I have no idea what that means.

Does the non-member favor the action? The way many politicians would answer is: I am happy to know your views, and will take them into account should this matter actually reach the floor for decision.

It could be still be argued that they did not say "received by every member of the Board" and that the Board per se, does not exist except while it is in session, so that while individual members may know, the Board itself has not been informed until an announcement is made during a meeting. I'm not saying I'd argue that, but if I were seeking to withdraw a rash resignation letter, I might try it.

I'm not sure we should care overmuch whether anyone on the board would have an objection, since the bylaws amendment would presumably be passed by the membership. The bylaws could simply be amended to add "by majority vote" or "by 2/3 vote". I'm not sure what previous notice accomplishes here, since previous notice normally is not useful to non-members (of the board) unless there is an opportunity for them to attend, speak, and potentially influence the outcome of the board vote. If that's already the case under your rules, then fine. If it's not, and you want it to be, then you can specify that the board must hold a hearing to which the general members are invited, before voting upon a dues increase.

When the vote required is a majority of those present, all that matters is the number of Yes votes, which must be more than half of the number present. I agree that a voice vote cannot reliably determine this. I think a counted rising vote or counted show of hands would be necessary. If the number of Yes votes is enough to carry the motion, it would not be necessary to call for the No votes, but if the motion does not have enough votes to pass, the chair should call for the negative vote, if only to preserve the rights of those voting No to move to Reconsider.

Yes, an election is a special kind of motion, and is usually assumed, because it is required by the rules. Effectively the motion is that ______ be elected to the office of _____. Nominations are a method of filling the blanks in that motion, except that the suggestions remain available at the time of the final vote on the motion.

If not raised at the time, a point of order at the next meeting should be ruled as untimely by the chair, unless "clear and convincing evidence" is presented that a quorum was not present. That's the standard in RONR.