Josh Martin

Yes, to the extent this is correct, this would mean this would be a main motion which conflicted with the bylaws, which would also be a continuing breach. Again, however, I think the issue would be moot if the Secretary (still) voluntarily agrees to perform this task. (Although I gather the Secretary has likely changed their mind, which is what gives rise to this argument.)

In the absence of a directive in this matter, the chair should follow the board's customs in this regard. In the event there is also an absence of custom on this subject (as I suppose may be the case if the board is meeting for the first time), my own view is that the chair should presume the use of the small board rules for a small board. I would again direct you to this thread. Assuming this is a board which has continuing existence, I would inquire as to the board's customs on this matter, to the extent you do not already know the board's customs. Because nothing in RONR authorizes the chair to choose the rules that the assembly will follow. I don't know that I can definitely say the chair's ruling was improper because I do not know the full context. It may well be the ruling was correct, because it may be that it was this board's custom to follow the rules ordinarily reserved for larger assemblies. But I continue to maintain that the chair cannot decide whether the board shall use the small board rules (or not) solely on the basis of the chair's personal preferences. The board should follow its past customs in this regard. In the absence of any customs as well, my view would be that the small board rules would be followed. A majority vote. "In some organizations, a particular practice may sometimes come to be followed as a matter of established custom so that it is treated practically as if it were prescribed by a rule. If there is no contrary provision in the parliamentary authority or written rules of the organization, such an established custom is adhered to unless the assembly, by a majority vote, agrees in a particular instance to do otherwise." RONR (12th ed.) 2:25

I agree that this email is not, in itself, a proper meeting call. The meeting call must specify the date, time, and location of the meeting. If it is a special meeting, which would appear to be the case, the purpose of the meeting must also be included. It is not clear to me, however, that it was the chairman's intent that this email, in itself, constitute the call of the meeting. Rather, this seems to be an informal communication indicating that the chair intends to call a special meeting "sometime in the next few months." "A special meeting (or called meeting) is a separate session of a society held at a time different from that of any regular meeting, and convened only to consider one or more items of business specified in the call of the meeting. Notice of the time, place, and purpose of the meeting, clearly and specifically describing the subject matter of the motions or items of business to be brought up, must be sent to all members a reasonable number of days in advance." RONR (12th ed.) 9:13

Well, they raise an interesting point of saying that perhaps the count should not be included because it was never read, but RONR also requires the count to be read. So it seems to me the count should now be read at the next board meeting (or as soon as possible) and included in those minutes. In any event, RONR is clear that the count is to be read and included in the minutes. If this was a ballot vote, the teller's report should be included in full. "The chairman of tellers, standing, addresses the chair, reads the tellers' report, and hands it to the chair without declaring the result. In the case of an election, the report follows this form:" RONR (12th ed.) 45:37 "The tellers' report is entered in full in the minutes, becoming a part of the official records of the organization. Under no circumstances may this be omitted in an election or in a vote on a critical motion out of a mistaken deference to the feelings of unsuccessful candidates or members of the losing side." RONR (12th ed.) 45:40 "a) When a count has been ordered, the number of votes on each side is entered, unless the vote was on a motion that would not otherwise be entered in the minutes. b) When the voting is by ballot, the full tellers' report (45:37–40) is entered. c) When the voting is by roll call, the names of those voting on each side and those answering “present,” as well as the total number in each category, are entered. If members who are present fail to respond on a roll-call vote, enough of their names must be recorded as present to reflect that a quorum was present at the time of the vote. If the chair voted, no special mention of this fact is made in the minutes." RONR (12th ed.) 48:5 If the organization wishes to adopt its own rules of order providing that the count shall not be recorded (or even read), I suppose the organization is free to do so, but I would strongly advise against it. I strongly disagree with the view that reading the count or including the count in the minutes is "divisive." There a number of very good reasons to include the result of a counted vote in the minutes, such as to inform members of the feasibility of raising such an issue in the future, or to inform the assembly of whether a recount may be desirable, and so forth. "To modify the rules governing what is regularly to be included in the minutes requires adoption of a special rule of order, although a majority vote may direct the inclusion of specific additional information in the minutes of a particular meeting." RONR (12th ed.) 48:3 Well, at least they're doing something right. The organization is to be commended for addressing this issue of including too much detail in the minutes. Although it appears that they have perhaps now overshot the mark and are including too little detail in the minutes. I take it these references to "no year-end financial report for last fiscal year, no periodic meetings of entire membership, budget due last November not presented yet, no budget for past 2 years, 2 Standing Committees have no members" all relate to issues with compliance with your bylaws. All I can say is that your organization is required to follow its bylaws. With respect to "demanding votes by email for issues too "urgent" to wait til next month for discussion [and then resistance to recording the outcome of the online vote in the next meeting's Minutes because the vote was not something "said or done" at the meeting!]," I would say the following: First, votes by email are only permissible at all if authorized in the organization's bylaws or applicable law. To the extent votes by email are authorized, certainly the decisions made in this manner will have to be recorded somewhere. It's correct that RONR does say that the minutes should only contain the decisions made at the meeting, but RONR assumes that all decisions by the assembly are made at a meeting, and therefore does not address the question of how to record decisions made by the assembly outside of a meeting. (Or strictly speaking, decisions made by the assembly's members outside of a meeting, because there is no "assembly" outside of a meeting.) "A group that attempts to conduct the deliberative process in writing—such as by postal mail, electronic mail (e-mail), or facsimile transmission (fax)—does not constitute a deliberative assembly. When making decisions by such means, many situations unprecedented in parliamentary law will arise, and many of its rules and customs will not be applicable (see also 9:30–36)." RONR (12th ed.) 1:1n1, emphasis added "It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that the right to vote is limited to the members of an organization who are actually present at the time the vote is taken in a regular or properly called meeting, although it should be noted that a member need not be present when the question is put. Exceptions to this rule must be expressly stated in the bylaws." RONR (12th ed.) 45:56 "In any case, a board can transact business only in a regular or properly called meeting of which every board member has been sent any required notice (see 9:2–5, 9:13–16)—or at an adjournment of one of these meetings 2—and at which a quorum (see 40:5) is present. The personal approval of a proposed action obtained separately by telephone, by individual interviews, or in writing, even from every member of the board, is not the approval of the board, since the members lacked the opportunity to mutually debate and decide the matter as a deliberative body. (See also Electronic Meetings, 9:30–36.)" RONR (12tth ed.) 49:16 So RONR itself tells an organization that if the organization chooses to conduct voting by email, what is said in RONR will have to be taken with a grain of salt, because the rules in RONR do not contemplate conducting the deliberative process in that manner. As I have said previously, obviously the decisions made in this manner will have to be recorded somewhere, both as a parliamentary and practical manner. My own personal experience is that most organizations choose to record these decisions in the minutes - generally either in the minutes of the regular meeting immediately prior to the electronic vote or the minutes of the regular meeting immediately after the electronic vote. This is by no means, however, the only way to do it. Conceivably, the assembly could instead develop a separate set of minutes for decisions occurring outside of a meeting, covering some set period of time. (Between regular meetings, monthly, quarterly, annually, etc.) The key thing is that the decisions should be recorded somewhere. Is this board subordinate to a higher authority (e.g. the general membership)? If so, you could take your case to them. Beyond that, you don't really have any parliamentary options at your disposal beyond persuading your fellow board members. It is ultimately up to an organization to enforce its own rules, including the rules in the parliamentary authority adopted by the organization. As Mr. Katz notes, there is no "RONR Police." It may be (or may not be) that there could be legal recourse available, but that is beyond the scope of RONR and this forum, and any questions along those lines should be directed to an attorney.

No, it would not make any difference. The alleged violation here relates to a rule which protects absentees. To the extent such a violation has in fact occurred, that would be a continuing breach, so the fact that a Point of Order was not raised at the time is immaterial. The fact the Secretary agreed to this may well make the whole issue moot if the Secretary is still willing to stand by that agreement and voluntarily produce and publish the minutes as requested. But if the Secretary has changed their mind since then, I don't think this solves anything.

I agree with you that the body may decide on this matter, however, I do not agree "that at the outset of the meeting the Chair would pick." Yes, a second would be required, and the board would decide. But as I understand the facts, a member did not raise a Point of Order that the small board rules are required to be followed. A member made a motion to use the small board rules. If a member did in fact make a Point of Order on this matter, the chair would make a ruling on that, which would be subject to appeal. In my view, in the absence of any rules adopted by the board in this matter, the chair's ruling on such a question should be based on the board's customs, rather than the chair's personal preferences. Once again, the power delegated to the chair is for the chair to enforce and interpret the assembly's rules, subject to appeal, not to make his own decisions about what rules the assembly will follow.

It's correct that it is not "mandatory" to use the small board rules, but this decision rests with the board, not with the chair. For further discussions on this subject, you may wish to see this thread. I disagree. A small board is free to choose to use the rules ordinarily reserved for larger assemblies, in whole or in part. This does not require a suspension of the rules or a special rule of order. Some of the proposed rules here, however, deviate from the default rules in RONR as well, so those rules would require a special rule of order. I do not follow how "naturally" the chair would decide. The power to make these decisions rests with the board, not with the chair acting alone. The chair is delegated the authority to enforce and interpret the rules which the assembly has adopted. The chair is not delegated the authority to determine which rules the board shall follow. I take it that what you are getting at is - unless and until the board has made a decision on this matter, what rules are followed? In my view, this would be governed by the board's customs, not by the whims of the chair. To the extent there is also no discernable custom in this matter, I would say the board is presumed to use the small board rules. I reject the framing of this question of "the Chair's way of running the board meeting," and will instead interpret this question as asking: "If the board wishes to choose to follow the small board rules or to follow the rules ordinarily reserved for larger assemblies, does this require a majority vote or a two-thirds vote?" In my view, the answer is a majority vote, assuming that the board has not adopted any rules of its own on these matters. If the board wishes to adopt a rule which deviates from both the small board rules and the default rule, however, that will require a special rule of order, which requires for its adoption a 2/3 vote with previous notice or a vote of a majority of the entire membership. Additionally, the board can only adopt such rules provided that the board is either a.) not subordinate to a parent assembly or b.) is authorized by the organization's bylaws to adopt such rules. (The board in the present instance is an elected body, and is therefore free to adopt its own rules so long as such rules do not conflict with applicable law.)

I will answer your questions with respect to Robert's Rules of Order, however, I would note that your town's rules and applicable law will take precedence over RONR. To the extent a member simply uses the outline or notes as a guide, no rule in RONR prohibits this. If the member is reading excerpts from the papers, this technically requires the assembly's permission, but typically such permission is granted as a matter of courtesy as long as members don't get carried away with it. "If any member objects, a member has no right to read from—or to have the secretary read from—any paper or book as a part of his speech without permission of the assembly. This rule is a protection against the use of reading as a means of prolonging debate and delaying business. It is customary, however, to permit members to read short, pertinent, printed extracts in debate so long as they do not abuse the privilege. If a member wishes to do so, he can, while speaking in debate, say, “If there is no objection, I would like to read… [indicating the nature and length of the paper].” The member can then begin to read unless another member objects. In such a case, at any time until the speaker has finished reading, another member can interrupt him by an objection, which must be addressed to the chair. Or, if the speaker desiring to read prefers, he can formally request permission: “Mr. President, I ask permission to read a statement… [briefly describing it, as above]”; and the chair then asks if there is objection. In either case, if there is an objection, the chair can, of his own accord, put the question on granting permission, or any member can move “that permission to read a paper in debate be granted.” This motion requires no second unless moved by the member who made the request. Action of the assembly granting a request to read a paper can be reconsidered at any time until the reading has been concluded." RONR (12th ed.) 33:20 RONR has no rule on this subject. This will be subject to the town's rules and applicable law, or in the absence of such rules, at the discretion of the assembly. RONR has no rule on this subject. This will be subject to the town's rules and applicable law, or in the absence of such rules, at the discretion of the assembly. Certainly such issues may be brought to the attention of the members during regular debate and/or through the use of a Request for Information. (The phrase "Point of Information" is no longer the preferred term for this motion. "Request for Information" is intended to make more clear that the purpose of this motion is to ask for information.) A Point of Order is likely not the appropriate tool. A conflict with nonprocedural rules in applicable law is a legal problem, not a parliamentary problem. I understand you to be asking whether a motion may be made providing, for example, "To permit [so and so] to give an explanation of legal issues pertaining to the ordinance, and for the debate timer to be paused during that explanation." Such a motion is in order. A motion which limits or extends limits of debate requires a 2/3 vote for adoption. RONR itself does not contain limitations on members' proximity to the ballot counters, but an assembly is free to adopt its own rules on that subject if desired. It may well also be that the rule in question is within applicable law. Assuming the rule is not found in applicable law, the assembly might want to work out a compromise on this issue, permitting a few observers supporting each side of the issue to observe the counting. It may not be feasible to permit everyone to observe the count who wishes to do so. So far as RONR is concerned, this is at the assembly's discretion. Under RONR, only members of the assembly have a right to be in the room, but others may be permitted to attend if desired. Since this is a public body, however, it seems highly likely there are rules on this subject in applicable law, and such rules will take precedence.

No, I do not. But I continue to wonder whether a strict observance of this rule is practical for an assembly of any appreciable size. So I suppose I am forced to admit that this "violates" 9:31, however, I am not entirely certain this fact means the assembly is prevented from adopting such rules.

Everyone has to actually vote in order to vote. No one is "automatically" counted as anything.

But I would argue that it is the rules as applied which are the problem here, not the rules themselves. The apparent concern (and I think it is a valid concern) is that the chair has more ability to abuse this rule than a chair would in an in-person meeting. And this illustrates why ultimately a balance must be struck between these competing concerns. I'd also note that there are challenges on each side even without assuming malicious intent. A chair may inadvertently overlook requests for recognition, or members may inadvertently leave their audio unmuted and expose others to background noise or feedback loops.

The organization should adopt rules addressing how a member with an interrupting motion shall obtain the floor. An assembly which holds its meetings via Zoom will need to adopt rules about how to handle a number of issues, including, but not limited to, the issue of seeking recognition and obtaining the floor. "Various additional rules (in the bylaws, special rules of order, standing rules, or instructions to a committee, as appropriate) may also be necessary or advisable regarding the conduct of electronic meetings, such as rules relating to: • the type of equipment or computer software required for participation in meetings, whether the organization must provide such equipment or software, and contingencies for technical difficulties or malfunctions; • methods for determining the presence of a quorum; • the conditions under which a member may raise a point of order doubting the presence of a quorum, and the conditions under which the continued presence of a quorum is presumed if no such point of order is raised; • methods for seeking recognition and obtaining the floor; • means by which motions may be submitted in writing during a meeting; and • methods for taking and verifying votes." RONR (12th ed.) 9:36, emphasis added Again, I would note that the rules pertaining to some of these issues (specifically, the last three bullets) are also likely to be issues that an assembly will need to address for large in-person meetings. "In large conventions or similar bodies, some of the rules applicable to the assignment of the floor may require adaptation, which, pending the adoption of appropriate convention standing rules or special rules of order, the chair may direct. For example, in a large hall where microphones are in use and members must walk some distance to reach one, members may be asked to line up at numbered microphones. They may be recognized in numerical order, or someone may list them for the chair in the order in which assistant sergeants-at-arms turned on lights affixed to the microphones. It may be provided that a member who has a priority matter, such as a point of order, may ask the assistant at the microphone to flash the light to so indicate. Should a member, called in whatever order is established, move an amendment or other debatable motion, others awaiting a turn should stand aside unless their debate is germane to the new motion. If the Previous Question or a motion to limit debate is moved, members who have been waiting in line cannot validly protest; as in all other cases, the chair cannot choose the occasions when such motions will be in order. He may advise the assembly that, if it wishes to continue debate and hear from those waiting in line, a minority greater than one third has this within its power." RONR (12th ed.) 42:16 This is an interesting question, and is certainly one the assembly will need to consider in adopting its rules. Although I would note that, with respect to the rules presented in the present instance, the rules appear to be of a nature that the assembly would know who is seeking recognition. The rules provide for members to seek recognition by means of utilizing the "raise hands" and "emoji" features in Zoom, which are displayed on the screen for all present in the meeting to see. I am aware that some organizations instead utilize a system in which requests for recognition are sent privately to the chair or to assistants, and that certainly raises some additional questions of trust, as well as to how members could raise a Point of Order concerning the chair's assignment of the floor. I could certainly see an argument that those are not "conditions of opportunity for simultaneous aural communication among all participating members equivalent to those of meetings held in one room or area," since in an in-person meeting you can see (and perhaps hear, depending on the assembly's rules and customs) who is seeking recognition. I'm not sure I am prepared at this time to make a final judgment on that, but I see your point. The fact remains ultimately that for any assembly, it is necessary to balance concerns about the chair and assistants being malicious (or simply overwhelmed) with concerns about ensuring that the meeting is maintained in a manner that the assembly can hear the persons who are speaking. The concerns on both sides of this coin are enhanced for an electronic meeting.

But the bylaws do not simply say that the officers serve for a fixed term. Rather, they that officers serve "until the next set of Leadership elections unless removed from office per Article III, Section 4." Article III, Section 4 then provides "Elected Leadership Officers or Members may be removed for cause by a two-thirds (⅔) affirmative vote of the Members when a quorum of two-thirds (⅔) is present." So based upon these facts - while ultimately the organization is free to interpret its own bylaws in this matter - it remains my view that formal disciplinary procedures are not needed to remove an officer. As to your more recent question, no, I do not think that under the rules in the organization's bylaws, any member could demand a secret ballot on a vote to remove.

Well, technically, I think the Secretary is correct - at least for now, but the organization should fix this in the future. If the general body meets less frequently than quarterly, the general body should authorize the board (or a committee) to approve the minutes. If the general body neglects to do so, however, the authority to approve the minutes rests with the general body, and the secretary is quite correct that the board has no authority to intervene in this matter. "Exceptions to the rule that minutes are approved at the next regular meeting (or at the next meeting within the session) arise when the next meeting will not be held within a quarterly time interval, when the term of a specified portion of the membership will expire before the start of the next meeting, or when, as at the final meeting of a convention, the assembly will be dissolved at the close of the present meeting. In any of these cases, minutes that have not been approved previously should be approved before final adjournment, or the assembly should authorize the executive board or a special committee to approve the minutes. The fact that the minutes are not read for approval at the next meeting does not prevent a member from having a relevant excerpt read for information; nor does it prevent the assembly in such a case from making additional corrections, treating the minutes as having been previously approved (see 48:15)" RONR (12th ed.) 48:12 Only the general body has the authority to authorize the board or a committee to approve the minutes of the general body. Waiting for a year is not okay, but if the general body neglected to authorize anyone to approve the minutes, I guess that's what's going to happen this time. This should be kept in mind for future meetings of the general body.

Okay. So to be clear, this particular vote at issue required only a majority vote, and therefore, the one vote at issue may have made a difference. I understand why you may have thought this, but nonetheless, the fact remains that defeating a motion is not "a positive action taken that would have to be overturned by rescinding the action."

Since this is a persistent problem, your organization might wish to consider whether to amend the bylaws to remove this position. No, the election must still be held. But the election isn't "completed." An election isn't complete until you elect someone. I think we are perhaps speaking past each other. I believe you are using the term "election" to refer collectively to electing all of the officers. I am using the term "election" to refer individually to the election of a particular officer. No, that's not what I'm saying. I apologize for any lack of clarity. When I referred to "the election," I was referring solely to the election for the office for which no person is elected (in your case, the office of President-Elect). The elections for all of the other offices are unaffected. The assembly can and should complete those elections. With respect to the office where there are no volunteers, the assembly should still attempt to hold that election. If no one is elected, however, that election is incomplete. As a result, that office - and that office only - will remain vacant until the assembly completes the election and elects someone to that office. Because, however, this office has now been vacant for over two years, the organization may want to take a closer look at amending the qualifications and duties of this position, or even amending the bylaws and just getting rid of the position.

No one disagrees that it's silly. But notwithstanding this, the bylaws take precedence over Robert's Rules of Order, and if the bylaws provide that no rules in the bylaws can be suspended, full stop, it seems to me the bylaws mean what they say. Now, I will of course add that it is ultimately up to the organization to amend its own bylaws, but the facts presented at this time are that the bylaws say "These bylaws may be amended only. They shall not be suspended," which seems pretty clear to me.

I have some follow-up questions on this. Because setting aside this particular situation, I am very concerned about an extreme version of this view making all Zoom meetings impractical. First, is it your view that, in order to constitute a deliberative assembly as is defined in 9:31, members must be unmuted at all times, or simply that they must have the ability to unmute themselves if they choose? If board members could be muted by the chair on an as-needed basis (due to disruption or background noise or whatever), would that be permissible? (I am assuming the answer is "yes," since the sample rules in the appendix provide for this option.) What exactly distinguishes this from controlling access to the microphones in a large convention hall? While strictly speaking, persons who do not have access to the microphones are not "muted," it is still the case that such persons will not be able to heard by the vast majority of persons present. Assuming that meetings of this nature are authorized in the bylaws or applicable law, even if adopting rules of this nature would mean that the meeting does not, strictly speaking, constitute a deliberative assembly, does this fact mean that the rules in question may not be adopted except by an amendment to the bylaws? Or does it simply mean that the organization has deviated in some manner from the deliberative assembly defined in 1:1, and therefore the rules in RONR will not be fully applicable? "The rules in this book are principally applicable to meeting bodies possessing all of the foregoing characteristics. Certain of these parliamentary rules or customs may sometimes also find application in other gatherings which, although resembling the deliberative assembly in varying degrees, do not have all of its attributes as listed above." RONR (12th ed.) 1:2 Generally, it is my view that in order for a Zoom meeting to be at all functional, the following should be imposed on members, at a minimum. Even if members have the ability to unmute themselves, members should be instructed to remain muted unless they are presently speaking, or seeking recognition to do so. The chair (or persons assigned to this task) should have the ability to mute members if needed. In many assemblies, this may be sufficient, but my experience is that even stricter audio controls may well be necessary in assemblies where one or more of the following is true: The assembly is particularly large The assembly has a number of members who have a tendency to speak without being recognized The assembly has a number of members who are not particularly familiar with technology Generally, my view is that so long as mechanisms exist for members to be exercise their rights as members, such as mechanisms to obtain recognition and to make interrupting motions, and those mechanisms are applied appropriately, this still constitutes a deliberative assembly. It appears there is a suspicion that the mechanisms in this case will not be applied appropriately, and that the chair may abuse this power and refuse to recognize persons who should be recognized. To the extent this is correct, I think that is very concerning, but I do not find the rules themselves to be concerning. I am also in agreement with Mr. Brown that any rules in this matter must be adopted by the board itself, not by the chair acting alone.

Well, then I think you have your answer. If the bylaws provide they cannot be suspended, period, then I would assume the bylaws mean what they say. This is an extremely ill-advised rule, but nonetheless, the organization is obliged to follow this rule unless and until it is amended. So to be clear, your suggestion is to just ignore what the bylaws say? If the bylaws, however, provide that the bylaws cannot be suspended, period, without the rule of order exception contained within RONR, the rule in the bylaws takes precedence over RONR. But I do not agree that these rules are "false." They're stupid, but they're not false. A society is entirely free to adopt rules doing all sorts of stupid things, including prohibiting suspending any rules, prohibiting any points of order, and so forth. This seems to be similar to the long-running debate we have had on this forum over whether a society can adopt rules saying the bylaws cannot be amended, and we tended to fall into two camps of "Yes, you can do that, but it's stupid" and "No, you can't do that, because it's stupid."

Generally speaking, no. I suppose one might imagine particularly ridiculous circumstances where the chair might rule a financial motion out of order on the grounds that it is frivolous or absurd or contains no rational proposition. But a motion cannot be ruled out of order simply on the grounds that it is financially irresponsible. No, the motion cannot be ruled out of order (at least not for this reason).

So I'm not entirely clear on what the purpose of re-electing this person would be, since it seems he would be resigning immediately. I would advise that the person withdraw from the election and you all elect someone else who actually wants to serve. But if you for some reason do elect this person, I guess the solution you propose makes sense.

No. The chair ruled correctly. An item which is on the agenda but which has not yet been reached is not pending. I don't think this is correct, but even if it was, the remaining item was not pending.

I can't speak to whether your bylaws provide that the membership committee's recommendation in this matter goes to the board first. But to the extent that is how it works in your organization, it isn't wrong. Board members retain their rights as members of the organization, and are free to vote at a membership meeting, notwithstanding that they may have previously voted on the issue as a board member.

I don't think I fully understand the scenario or the question. There is certainly no rule requiring anyone other than the Secretary to sign the minutes. I suppose it is not improper for other persons to sign the minutes, if the organization wishes. Oh, that's not strange at all. It happens all the time. If no one is nominated for the position, then write-in votes are still in order. If no one is elected to the position, then depending on how the term of office is defined in the bylaws, either 1.) the person currently in the office will continue to serve until the election can be completed at a later time or 2.) the position will remain vacant until the election can be completed at a later time.

As you'll see in the other thread, it's a bit of a gray area. I certainly would not say that "any and all motions regarding the special convention minutes" fall within those exceptions. As to whether a particular motion falls within those exceptions, it's a judgment call.