Richard Brown

Agreeing with the comment immediately above by Dr. Stackpole, I, too, would be asking to see this rule in writing and would be wanting to know where it is publicly posted and if it's not posted (or in a rule book somewhere), why not? Of course, knowing how college administrations operate, you are pretty much at their mercy even if they are screwing up. Has anyone with the administration actually produced a copy of this rule for you? Is is printed in some kind of rule book or policy manual that is available to the Student Government Association?

Like Mr. Katz, I'm confused by your statement that the administration ordered a "revote". Please elaborate and explain what you mean by this. It seems to me the administration is limited to either approving or disapproving the amendment which was adopted. Did the administration perhaps suggest alternative language which it would approve? I also agree that if your bylaws or governing documents make no provision for a special meeting, then one may not be held.

What was the ruling of the chair? That the meeting was adjourned?

Did the chair ever announce whether the motion had carried? I don't see where there was ever an announcement and the chair was contemplating whether to cast a deciding vote when two other members stood up and the chair then recognized the motion to adjourn. I'm not sure at all that the motion was adopted or declared adopted. It looks to me like the meeting adjourned before the vote was completed and the result announced. Also, members have a right to change their votes up until the results are announced. If two numbers decided to vote or to change their votes before the results had been announced, their votes should have counted. It looks to me like the motion might have caried, but the chair never announced that it had carried.

The scheduled start time of a meeting, for all practical purposes, can indeed be delayed by means of the motion to fix the time to which to adjourn. In fact, it can be done several times. The meeting must still be called to order at the appointed time or as close thereto as practical, but the meeting can then be adjourned to resume at a later time. All that is necessary is that a couple of members show up for the originally scheduled start time. It might be possible for even one member to set an adjourned meeting, but there should preferably be at least two members present to do it. I have seen this utilized more than once at conventions to change both the start time and the meeting location of meetings at a convention.

A resolution is basically a formal word for a motion.... or perhaps a formally worded motion. A petition has no particular meaning in parliamentary procedure. i've always looked at a petition as a form of a request, usually formal, as in a petition for a change in zoning presented to a government official by a group of homeowners. Some court filings are deemed petitions.

How many living, breathing members does your board have right now? What happened to the other board members? Have they resigned? Have their resignations been accepted? As Mr. Huynh said, you might have a quorum after all.

Guest JPE, a little more information will be helpful. How was unanimous consent taken outside of a meeting? Please elaborate as to just what was done.

My understanding is the same as yours. I don't believe a bylaw provision which prohibits further nominations is sufficient for prohibiting write-in votes.

There have been several discussions on this forum regarding whether, when and if an incomplete election turns into a vacancy. I am not able to research that point right now, but perhaps someone else has a mind and the time to do it.

RONR speaks only of "executive sessions", not "closed sessions". The two terms are not necessarily synonymous. An executive session is a secret session in which the proceedings are secret. Non members are usually excluded (but can be invited to remain) and those who attend are duty bound to keep the proceedings secret. A "closed meeting", on the other hand, is a term that could be used to denote an executive session, but it can also mean a meeting at which only members may attend but the proceedings are not necessarily secret. Some organizations conduct all of their meetings as "closed meetings", meaning only members may attend, but what takes place at the meetings is not secret. It is best to not try to use the terms interchangeably. Whereas an executive session has a clearly defined meting in parliamentary law, the term closed session does not. It can mean different things to different people and in different circumstances.

Agreeing with the others, proxy voting is not allowed unless permitted by the bylaws or required by state law.

As others have already said, we need more information in order to properly answer your question.

You might go prepared with just slips of paper with the names of the "write in" candidates printed and properly spelled. Note: Your organization may or may not have some sort of a rule prohibiting passing out literature at a meeting, but I'm confident that with a little bit of ingenuity that obstacle... if it really exists... can be overcome. What about outside the meeting hall, before members actually enter the meeting room?

Yes, it's called old fashioned politicking. Word of mouth. A write-in campaign. An email and phone call and text message campaign. Passing out flyers. If Alaska can elect a United States Senator (Lisa Murkowski) by means of a write in campaign, surely your organization has a good chance of pulling it off! South Carolina also elected Strom Thurmond to the U.S. Senate by means of a write in campaign.

What address did he use when he joined? Don't you require some kind of address? Doesn't somebody know where he lives? Seems to me you just do the best you can with what you've got... but you make a DILIGENT (as in real, sure 'nuff) effort to see that he gets notified of the action. Question: Was he given notice of his pending suspension? Is notice required by your bylaws or rules? How was he given that notice? Did he respond to it? Do you know if he got it? Edited to add: The rules on discipline in RONR, particularly as expressed on page 656, require that before a member may be expelled (or suspended) he must be given notice of the proposed action and afforded an opportunity to defend himself. Was he given that opportunity? Do you have rules that supersede those rules in RONR? Here is the key text from page 656: A member or officer has the right that allegations against his good name shall not be made except by charges brought on reasonable ground. If thus accused, he has the right to due process—that is, to be informed of the charge and given time to prepare his defense, to appear and defend himself, and to be fairly treated. (Emphasis added)

Then shouldn't the answer be either "no", "maybe", or "it depends", rather than "yes"? 😉

I have not yet read anything that you have posted that leads me to believe that email voting is permissible in this organization. You have provided snippets and brief paraphrases, but not enough for me to say email voting is permissible. However, unless it is prohibited by state law, you can probably adopt a bylaw Amendment which permits it.

Hmmm. How would they change it to an earlier start time?

I think the answer is more "it depends", rather than yes or no. In what way and for what reason is someone wanting to change the "posted time"? Also, as Mr. Mervosh asked, how was the start time established in the first place?

Please elaborate and tell us more about exactly what is being voted on and how the voting is expected to be conducted. You have provided us with precious little to base any answers on.

Yes. See the following language on page 370: "It should be noted that a special order does not interfere with a recess or adjournment that is scheduled for a particular hour. When such an hour arrives, the chair announces it and declares the assembly in recess or adjourned, even if a special order is pending that was made before the hour of recess or adjournment was fixed. When the chair announces the hour, anyone can move to postpone the time for adjournment, or to extend the time of considering the pending question for a specified period. These motions are undebatable and require a two-thirds vote (see also pp. 232, 240–41)." (Emphasis added).

Well, provided state law doesn't contain a provision mandating that electronic communications be an acceptable form of providing notice, etc. Most state laws make it optional, but some might make its acceptance mandatory or might contain an "opt out" provision rather than an "opt in" provision. Edited to add: Also, see this language on page 89 regarding electronic notifications when agreed to by a member: "When notice is required to be sent, unless a different standard is specified that requirement is met if written notice is sent to each member either: a) by postal mail to the member's last known address; or b) by a form of electronic communication, such as e-mail or fax, by which the member has agreed to receive notice. That provision in RONR is applicable unless the bylaws specifically disallow electronic communications.

I agree with the previous responses but would add that the vast majority of the regular contributors to this forum are probably of the opinion that prohibiting amendments is a terrible idea. Have you really thought that through? Why do you think it might be a good idea to prohibit amendments?

No, it is not too late for your organization to investigate possible wrongdoing and to take disciplinary action against either past or present officers and members. See chapter XX of RONR, which is the chapter on discipline. It consists of 26 pages of quite detailed procedures.