Gary Novosielski

Yes, the membership would be the body that would accept resignations. I don't see a problem with informing the membership that the individual is under investigation, without revealing any details of the investigation unless and until charges and specifications are reported. In fact, if the rules in RONR apply it is the membership that would be appointing the investigatory committee, rather than the board or a membership committee. But apparently your bylaws say something different, so you would follow those rules.

The answer will have to be found in your bylaws. RONR does not require nominations for any elections. If your bylaws have no rule on the subject, you could conceivably just pass out blank pieces of paper for ballots, and have voters write names on them. Can you tell us where your list of nominees came from? Even if there are nominations, there is no requirement for acceptance or that the nominee is even informed of the nomination, although it's common sense to do so. But it is within the rules to wait to see if you are elected. If so, and you are not present to decline, you may decline as soon as you are informed that you were elected Voters are not limited to voting only for people who have been nominated. Ballots must contain a provision for write-in candidates, unless your bylaws prohibit the practice. It is worth noting that assuming it is the Membership that is sending delegates, it is dangerous to rely on off-hand statements from officers about what is or isn't allowed. The Membership decides how it wishes to proceed. Rulings take place in meetings, are issued by the chair, and are subject to Appeal. If there is no rule to the contrary, a member at a Membership meeting may move to open nominations. While they're not mandatory unless your bylaws say so, they are an available tool if members feel that would be a helpful procedure. Again, it would be good to know where that "list" came from. And remember that your bylaws can supersede any of the above.

I agree that this is a matter that must be decided by the Membership. But I must agree with @Atul Kapurthat, since the bylaws call these people "members" and explicitly remove only the right to vote, this appears to me to mean that this is the only right that is being removed, and they retain all other rights of membership by default. They obviously have the right to attend regular session meetings without that being stated. Perhaps you could let us know whether the ex-officio members ever enter into discussion or make or second motions.

A tie is less than a majority, and therefore you hold a second ballot (and if necessary subsequent ballots) until the results indicate a majority for one candidate. Neither the Chair nor anyone else gets two votes. The results, though unlikely to change, will change eventually. You may recall that the recent election for Speaker of the House of Representatives, took fifteen ballots. The record is probably in the hundreds. You always have the option of reopening nominations. However, I'm confused on one point. If the original ballot at the AGM did not result in the election of all the necessary officers, this is not a mid-term vacancy to be filled by the board, this is an incomplete election by the membership, and it is there, and not in a Board meeting, that the second and subsequent ballots should have been, and still should be, held.

Please ask new questions by starting a new Topic rather than tail-ending on a two-year-old unrelated thread. But realize that very little of that question has anything to do with parliamentary procedure.

Or better yet, if no vote had been taken to admit him he's not allowed in by default. The president may order, or any member may demand his removal via a Point of Order. And yes, the Secretary may be subject to discipline as well. per your bylaws, or RONR §62.

It is, with the permission of the board by majority vote. No one person alone may demand that someone attend with her. Additionally, if a non-member is allowed to attend, they have no right to speak or interrupt, so it's not clear how this person would be able to "create" anything, as they are not allowed to interfere in any way.

I've heard rumors. I have also heard of a lawyer who claimed to teach it. But it could all be a cruel hoax.

That is something that is not within the board's power to grant. I don't think that even the membership as a whole could grant it. It would be a motion that conflicts with the bylaws. (Even if it were in order, such requests do require a second if moved by the person seeking to be excused. The only time no second is required is if a member moves for someone else to be excused.)

Yes, I'm shocked, shocked to hear of voters who won't accept the result of the election. After all, isn't this a political party? Don't they all believe in democracy? 🗽 Edited to add: Oh, on second reading, maybe it isn't a party. I guess I just assumed.

I think it's fair to say that no one person has the power to decide to, or not to, post the minutes. The assembly would need to vote on the matter, and of course the default is not to post it anyplace. But to reinforce @Dan Honemann's advice, make sure that if you do post minutes, clearly mark whether they are Draft or Approved minutes.

I didn't mean to imply that ejection should be the first choice of action. But the OP seemed to imply that things had gotten badly out of hand at every meeting. I fully subscribe to the graduated discipline process. The section 47:14 Suggestions for inexperienced presiding officers can be very useful for chairs that aren't used to handling tough situations. With a good understanding of the rules, it may be surprising how quickly things can be brought back under control.

No. The chair should not place dilatory motions before the assembly at all. Rather than becoming enraged, the members should calmly and quietly move that the disruptive members be removed for the remainder of the meeting. The chair may not be up to the task of presiding. It requires a cool head.

For future reference, new questions should be posted by starting a new Topic. Well, RONR does not require board approval, or for that matter any involvement in running the membership's election. Your bylaws, however, may supersede any of the following.. I would interpret required notice in advance of the meeting to mean notice that there will be an election, not necessarily who is running. So I do see any mandatory notification of names in advance. There's nothing particularly wrong with it, but it's not something to worry about. The nominating committee could reconvene, and reported a new candidate at the election meeting. In addition, even in the absence of unexpected changes, and after reading of the nominating committees list of candidates, the chair must call for any additional nominations from the floor, so there's ample opportunity to nominate someone new. And the ballots should always provide space for write-in candidates, anyway, so un-nominated persons can still be elected to office.

None of this comports with the rules in RONR, so you'll have to refer to your bylaws for guidance, and hope that they are drafted clearly enough to help. In the rules in RONR, the Parliamentarian is an advisor on parliamentary procedure to the president and, at times, to the membership as a whole, but is not the record keeper of violations, grievances, infractions, and petty inadequacies.

I agree with Mr. Katz, and I think it bears repeating: The membership, and not a solicitor, interprets the bylaws. RONR provides that procedural regulations established by law for corporations, public bodies, or others, if any, which apply to your organization would take precedence over the bylaws, and you might need legal advice to interpret those, but the in my experience lawyers have been trained in trial practice, but typically not parliamentary procedure. The president pro tem has the powers of a president in connection with presiding over meetings, and not beyond that. He would not be empowered to call special meetings, nor to appoint the Election Board of two members referred to in the bylaws, which I suppose will have to be accomplished by the membership itself.

Well, it differs substantially from the rules in RONR. A nominating committee is quote typical, but in the usual case, it presents in its report a list of nominees, and then dissolves. The election is handled by the assembly itself. In the process, it may appoint committees to carry out specific tasks--notably the tellers, but these committees and individual volunteers explicitly do not have power to act in the name of the assembly.

You seem to be suggesting that the committee, having had plenty of time to investigate and produce a report, does nothing. I'm as likely as the next man to look carefully at the rules and posit how they might apply in the limiting case, but it seems to me you're straining the rules to the breaking point. Yes, if a committee, having been properly established, appointed, and charged, is completely delinquent in carrying out its charge, the assembly must have a method to reclaim the matter. But to suggest that this should or could represent a routine way of handling things is not, in my view, worthy of serious consideration. And it certainly should not be suggested to guests and questioning members as an example of due process.

I agree that this is a question that involves a customized rule in your bylaws, not RONR. I tend to agree with you that the second vote does not make a lot of sense, but I don't know your rules. Presumably the "council" and any committees are subordinate bodies to the congregation, so I don't see the reason for another vote. You could raise a Point of Order at a membership meeting that the rules are not being followed; the president will issue a ruling, and that ruling is subject to immediate Appeal. (See RONR 12th ed. §23-24.) The reasoning here is that a committee or council, does not have the power to contradict a superior body, so even if they could vote, they would not be allowed to vote No. That makes the vote dilatory. But all this assumes that the rules in RONR apply, and there could be quirks in your bylaw that call that assumption into question.

Yes. A small quibble with the wording. Rescind means to repeal a motion already adopted. If the resignation has not (yet) been accepted, there is nothing to rescind, and if it has been accepted, then the person is no longer a member, the motion has been completed, and there is again nothing to rescind. However if the resignation has not (yet) been accepted, it can be withdrawn (unilaterally) by the member, and there's nothing left to accept. So from the facts presented, It sounds like the resignation was properly withdrawn.

I think it might be, yeah. Li'l bit. I can't provide a citation, but I can't see myself seconding it, either.

If the rules in RONR apply, when a ballot contains sections for different offices, e.g., president, VP, secretary, etc., each section is treated like a separate election. So if only 41 people voted in the VP election, then you use 21/41 and the VP election is complete. The denominator may change from one section to another based on the number of votes cast in each. A section which is left left blank, or in some other way fails to express a preference, is an abstention, and is ignored. However a vote expressing a preference for an ineligible candidate, even if that candidate is, say Donald Duck, counts as a vote, albeit an illegal one, and is credited to no candidate, but adds to the denominator. If no candidate gets a majority, a second ballot is held for that office.

Well, it sounds like the membership will have to meet to decide what to do. You could do your best to publicize the screwup, print and mail proper ballots, and hold the election 14 days later.

Yes, such a motion would be in order, and would require a majority vote. Nevertheless, RONR advises that this sort of thing does not belong in the minutes.

I strongly disagree the last paragraph, and I hope additional members will weigh in.