Josh Martin

No. I disagree. How a member votes is not a question for the chair or the assembly to decide. I would count this as a yes vote (because it seems to clearly be a yes vote), but if the chair feels there is any question on the subject, he should ask the member to clarify how he intends to vote. I do not think it would be proper for the chair or the assembly to simply decide that this was an abstention.

Then it appears that your rules would also require notice of the new motion.

If I ignore the issue of the split meetings (although this seems like the parliamentary equivalent of "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"), I see no problem at all with what happened. Yes. Yes. RONR does not require previous notice in most cases. Do your rules require previous notice for this motion? RONR says no such thing. The original author does not need to agree to amend or rescind a proposal. Yes. If a motion is defeated, and some other motion is made at a later meeting, this is New Business, notwithstanding that it was related to the motion defeated at the earlier meeting. (In fact, it would be New Business even if the wording of the motion was the same.)

RONR has no rules for an arrangement like this.

It is? Where does the OP say that?

It is ultimately up to your organization to interpret its own bylaws, but nothing I see here has changed my own opinion. It seems to me that the Director is required to appoint a candidate, but it may be difficult, as a practical matter, for the board to enforce this requirement unless the bylaws grant the board the power to remove the President. If the President continues to refuse to appoint a candidate, the board may need to report this issue to the membership.

No, it does not. Minutes and written reports of officers, committees, and boards need to be kept forever. It does not apply to "all documentation produced by the association." There is no parliamentary requirement to keep letters/correspondence at all.

I certainly do not think there is anything the board can do to force the President to appoint a particular candidate. The President is obligated to appoint a candidate, but she is not obligated to appoint a particular candidate, and I'm not sure the board can really force the President to do anything. The board could point out that the bylaws require the President to appoint someone, but if she refuses, I'm not sure the board can do much of anything about it. Most likely, the authority to discipline the President rests with the general membership, not the board. I suppose a board member could raise a Point of Order, followed by an Appeal if necessary, to the effect that the President is in violation of the bylaws. If the President continues to refuse to carry out her duties despite the result of the appeal, this could lend the board more ammunition when it takes the issue to the membership. Has the board spoken with the President regarding this issue? It would certainly be preferable to find a diplomatic solution. It could also be argued that the President is violating the bylaws by personally taking on the duties and authority of this position, even though she has not been approved to serve in the position by the board, but unless the bylaws grant the board authority over disciplinary procedures, I don't know what the board can do about it.

1.) Do your bylaws say anything about removing board members? If not, how is the term of office defined in your bylaws? Please provide the exact wording. 2.) It seems to be correct that the bylaw amendments are null and void, as it appears that proper notice was not given of the amendments, which is generally a requirement of amending the bylaws. As I understand the facts, notice was given only by posting on a website which members did not have access to. Even if members had access, posting on a website is not sufficient notice unless your bylaws so provide. Nonetheless, it was not the correct move for the board to declare the amendments null and void, because the board does not have this authority. Only the membership has the authority to invalidate a vote of the membership.

It makes no difference. The person is either a member or he is not. Whether he usd to be a member is irrelevant. If this person is no longer a member, he has none of the rights of membership.

The votes should not be tallied, let alone the tally revealed, until the polls are closed.

Nothing in Robert's Rules prevents the board from reviewing the proposal. The real question is what your rules provide.

The President is certainly free to answer factual questions of members, especially those related to parliamentary procedure (indeed, answering parliamentary questions is part of his duties as chairman). The President should decline to answer a question, however, if doing so would undermine his appearance of impartiality (unless this is a small board). Furthermore, the Vice President (let alone the chair of the bylaws committee) has no authority to remove the President from the chair. Unless the President voluntarily relinquishes the chair, removing him from the chair requires a 2/3 vote.

Okay, so my understanding is that this "council" is in the nature of what RONR calls a convention, and the council is the body which amends the bylaws. The board does not vote on the amendments as a body, but the members of the board are also members of the council, and may therefore vote at meetings of the council. If this is correct, I stand by my previous responses.

At the next meeting of the body which conducted the election (the council?), a member should raise a Point of Order that the election of this member is null and void on the basis that he is ineligible for the office under the bylaws. If the chair rules the point not well taken, a member should appeal from the decision of the chair, and another member should second this motion. This places the question in the hands of the assembly. A majority vote is sufficient to overturn the chair's ruling.

It will ultimately be up to your organization to interpret the powers and duties your governing documents assign to the bylaws committee. Even if the committee is required to submit the amendment, I would note that the chair could rule the amendment out of order on the basis that it conflicts with the constitution.

Given the specifics of the situation, I'd think this would be a motion to Extend Limits of Debate rather than a motion to suspend the rules.

A Point of Order may be raised that the election of the person who was not eligible for office is null and void, and the chair's ruling may be appealed from if necessary.

Then it appears that the motion, whatever it was, was approved. You say that a motion was made from the floor. Look at the exact wording of that motion. That's what they approved. Also, perhaps members should raise these concerns before they vote in the future. If the chair tries to stifle debate to prevent this, raise a Point of Order, followed by an Appeal if necessary. I haven't the slightest idea. That phrase does not appear in RONR. Yes. Depending on the exact wording of the original motion, this might involve a new motion or it may be neccessary to amend the motion which was previously adopted. I also concur with Mr. Goldsworthy that it is advisable to see what your bylaws and applicable law say on these points.

Yes, but such behavior may be grounds for disciplinary action, especially if done regularly. And what do you mean by passing the gavel back? The Vice President should not pass the gavel to the President, as he made the motion and has therefore shown himself not to be impartial regarding it. The Vice President should pass the gavel to some other member.

See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 650-653 for the subsection "Remedies for Abuse of Authority by the Chair in a Meeting."

Yes, but he should not do so, unless he also passes the gavel.

I am of the view that the chair's announcement that the motion is adopted or lost is an essential part of the chair's announcing the result. If the assembly feels otherwise, then the assembly might also decide to discipline the board for not carrying out the motion adopted by the membership. It should again determine not only whether the board's decision was correct, but whether the board acted in good faith. It is up to you organization to interpret it own bylaws.

Most likely not. In the general case, the nominating committee reports directly to the membership.

This all seems perfectly reasonable, but I don't see any ambiguity here.