Gary Novosielski

Additionally, if the bylaws specify notice "in writing", RONR says that means postal mail, but can mean e-mail, fax, etc., if the recipient has agreed to receive notices by that method.

Agreeing with Mr. Brown: Having served as president on a local public school board (in NJ), I had statutory authority, along with the Superintendent, to set the agenda, which did not need to be approved at the beginning of the meeting. As a practical matter, since a majority of the business either arose out of committee reports or was routine, standard, and repetitive, a draft of the agenda was compiled by the Board Secretary/Business Administrator, and distributed by packet about four days before the meeting. Members who had questions about the agenda might contact me or the Superintendent, or the BA with questions, and addenda were sometimes distributed at the meeting, but once the meeting began, the agenda was considered set.

Ooooh, zoom technology. I want one! umm, What does it do?

Since no motion was made there's nothing to record. It is worth noting though, that if the VP truly felt that confidential business was necessary the proper thing to do would be to move to go into Executive Session, which would impose a duty of confidentiality on all who remain. But this would require a motion (and second), possibly debate, and majority approval. Simply "asking" for confidentiality is asking for trouble. Minutes taken during executive session would also remain confidential, and would themselves only be read and approved in executive session. But even if he had done so, this situation where no motion was made would not be recorded. Minutes are a record of what was done, not what was said. Where was the president when all this was going on? Was she present?

Absent any authority to promulgate Ground Rules, this appendix to the bylaws can only be considered an unenforceable list of "suggestions" written by someone trying to be helpful to new members. Whether they're actually helpful would remain in the eye of the beholder.

What about the rule that discussing, a.k.a. "debate" is not in order except when a motion is before the assembly? If the group does not want to waste an opportunity for motion-free discussion, let them do so during a recess if there is any hope of obtaining a quorum, or after adjournment if there is none.

No, that's nonsense. People have the right to vote for themselves. Why would I vote for a candidate when the candidate did not bother to do so? It indicates doubt about the candidate's enthusiasm for the job. Whoever was reading RONR should read RONR more thoroughly. If they had only continued on to the very next paragraph, for example, they might have found this: But what does concern me is that you are apparently approving an entire "slate''. I would have hoped that whoever it was that was reading RONR would have noticed that the word "slate" appears nowhere in the Work. An election is a vote, or series of individual votes to decide who shall fill an office or a number of offices. The report of the nominating committee is a list of nominees for each position to be voted on. Calling it a "slate" obscures its true nature, which is why RONR does not use the word. What also concerns me is that a nominating committee reports (or should) to the general membership, not to the Board. What business does the Board have approving or disapproving of the work of such a committee? Its report should go to the membership at the general meeting, after which the chair must call for additional nominations from the floor. If your bylaws require a ballot vote, with no exception provided in the case of unopposed nominees, then a ballot vote must be held, due to the possibility that write-in votes might alter the outcome. Of course if you have specific rules related to elections that supersede those in RONR then you must follow them, but in that case this forum on RONR will be of less value to you on this particular question.

The Appeal motion (see §24) in RONR, refers only to appealing decisions (rulings) of the chair. It typically happens as a result of the chair's ruling on a Point of Order (§23). None of this would be done by mail. The timeliness requirements for points of order related to elections depends upon the nature of the rule violation that is being alleged. It can vary from nearly instantaneous to virtually forever, depending on the circumstances. Elections normally become final upon the announcement of the result by the chair. What specific reasons exist in this case that would raise doubts about the result? Edited to add: Of course if your bylaws have a specific rule that applies to "filing" an election appeal by mail, then those are the rules you'll need to follow, If they do not specify a time requirement, then the default rule for notices in RONR would suggest "a reasonable time". So the phrasing of your chosen title for this topic was spot on.

Unless the bylaws allow one or the other of those officers to (re)schedule meetings, they can't unilaterally do so. How do regular meetings get scheduled? By the Board, at the prior meeting? By the board at some point adopting a schedule for the year? Some other method? If the Board has the power to schedule, then there is no way they could schedule a change to the very next regular meeting without calling a special meeting (if they are allowed in the bylaws) prior to the date to which they propose to reschedule, and allowing for the required period of notice to all members of the board.

If it's not in the bylaws, they don't have that authority, and any attempt to do so should be met by a point of order, or a motion from the superior body (the general membership) instructing the board to rectify its errors.

Yeah, the whole idea is silly, but that doesn't prevent people from believing it. (especially in a post-truthy world)

And what would you say would occur if the board set the dues for two years, and failed to act at that point to change the dues?

The rules that are (presumably) in your bylaws, since RONR prohibits the practice. If there are no such rules, you can't vote by e-mail.

I agree with those who find no justification for the Board's involvement in "approving" the slate. The nomination committee typically reports (or should) to the general membership, not to the Board. Its report should be read at the AGM, after which the chair should call for nominations from the floor..

Bylaws are an area where paraphrases have repeatedly been found to be of little no value.

There is no such thiing as voting to elect "a slate" of candidates. It may be that the nominating committee is only charged with providing one nominee for each office, but if the rules in RONR apply, the chair must call for further nominations from the floor, and if the election must be held by ballot, write-in votes are acceptable. In any case, any candidates for any election have the right to cast votes for themselves. I would be hesitant to vote for anyone who would abstain on his own election In the few times I have seen it done, usually on a second ballot, it was taken as a sign equivalent to withdrawing from nomination.

It looks as though election by acclamation is possible in this case, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that the chair actually pronounced the member elected. If not, the chair should do so at the outset of the next meeting, and all the other questions go away.

Because reports of officers and committtees, sanding or select, are part of the standard order of business, I consider them business. Since this was a special meeting, the business to be conducted must be specified in the call, so presuming that the receiving of this report was germane to that business, as I presume it was, it would be part of the business to be conducted. But I still see no justification for entertaining it in the absence of a quorum.

Ì have always interpreted the term "set from time to time" as indicating that the action could be repeated as deemed necessary by means of an ordinary main motion. I would not think it necessary to limit the time with some expiration date. Having set the dues, the dues have been set, the motion has been fully completed and the dues would remain set at that level until they are set again.

Hearing reports is not among the exceptions allowed for inquorate meetings. That should be reason enough, but if pressed, I would guess it is because hearing reports is not a measure to obtain a quorum.

No, a chair pro tem would only have power when the chair is absent. Having a brief recess does not count as being absent. Like the others, I am curious how you would even have a chair pro tem if the meeting was chaired by the regular chair.

...and we appreciate your question, but please do not type in ALL CAPS.

It may have been their intention that this committee was always to meet in Executive [closed] Session (§9) but nothing in the procedure that was used appears to have accomplished this. Merely putting "Executive" in the title doesn't invoke any rules that make it different from any other committee. Presumably, however, the committee could adopt a motion to go into executive session at each of its meetings, but if they have a duty to notify when and where committees meet they would still need to do that. People could show up, but would need to leave as soon as the motion to go into executive session was adopted. I'm presuming that in the case of other committees, general members are permitted, by rule or custom, to attend. If by rule, it would be in your bylaws; RONR does not afford any such right. Also look in your bylaws for any rules that require committees to give notice of the reason they are going into closed session, or limiting the nature of business that may be discussed there. RONR has no such rules.

The only snag I can see, apart from the question of whether a motion was properly adopted, is this section: The language says that one committee member shall be a member of the board. It does not say at least one; it does not say no more than one. I suppose a point could be raised that a committee consisting only of board members is not properly constituted.

Regular meetings don't need to be called because everyone presumably knows when they are held. In RONR the words special meeting and called meeting are synonymous.