Josh Martin

Generally, no. Most violations of the rules must be challenged at the time. There are a few continuing breaches for particularly severe violations. Additionally, even fewer violations would be of such a nature as to make the meeting itself void (as opposed to the business conducted at the meeting).

Yes. General orders come before New Business.

I don't think the rule about the agenda is relevant. The motion to suspend the rules is not an agenda item in and of itself. It is germane to the election, which is on the agenda. I am likewise skeptical that the rule adopted by the board by the board is valid. Finally, the wording of the rule which prohibits nominations from the floor has not been made clear, and it seems to me that is crucial in answering this question.

Then those statements may also not be disclosed. So far as the rules in RONR are concerned, a trial must be held in executive session. Deviating from this would require the mutual agreement of both the accused and the society. This is the rule as of the 11th edition, written in 2011, and it is the rule regardless of what is said in executive session. I have not intended to suggest otherwise. Procedural rules in applicable law take precedence in RONR in all cases where there is a conflict, and of course discussing legal issues is beyond the scope of RONR and this forum. My only intent has been to make clear what the rules in RONR provide.

Yes, no one may disclose what happened in executive session to individuals outside of the organization. If the accused is still a member of the body which held the trial, he has a right to view the minutes, even if he did not attend the meeting (which he has a right to do). The minutes are, however, a record of what was done, not what was said. We can't discuss legal issues here, but the rules in RONR are intended to protect the accused and the society, and therefore, the trial may be made public only by mutual agreement between those two parties. You seem to be of the opinion that the rules should be designed to protect only the accused, and that therefore the accused should be able to demand a public trial. You are entitled to your opinion, but that is not the rule in RONR.

No to both questions. They are designed to protect the society and the accused. "If (after trial) a member is expelled or an officer is removed from office, the society has the right to disclose that fact—circulating it only to the extent required for the protection of the society or, possibly, of other organizations. Neither the society nor any of its members has the right to make public the charge of which an officer or member has been found guilty, or to reveal any other details connected with the case. To make any of the facts public may constitute libel. A trial by the society cannot legally establish the guilt of the accused, as understood in a court of law; it can only establish his guilt as affecting the society's judgment of his fitness for membership or office." (RONR, 11th. ed., pg. 655) The secrecy rules are not concerned with the member proving his innocence. That is what the trial itself is for. Once the trial is over, there isn't really anything for the accused to do, at least from a parliamentary perspective (unless, perhaps there was some grave procedural error in the trial). Instead, the rules are intended to prevent the charges against the accused, and any other details from the trial, from being made public. Yes, there are minutes, but the records that the OP seems to be thinking of are audio recordings or verbatim written transcripts. The minutes are a far cry from that.

If the accused requests to have the trial in open session, the society refuses, and the accused subsequently refuses to attend the trial, the trial must still be held, but the accused will not be present. The assembly just has to do the best it can. It can order that a transcript be kept if it wishes. As for sanctions for lying, this would be grounds for disciplinary action. Okay, but the rule is what it is, whether you like the rule or not. If you feel so strongly about it, you can try to have organizations you are a member of adopt their own rules on the subject.

No, and neither can anyone else. Debate is not in order while no motion is pending. If you perhaps mean that you wish to voice your opinion outside of a meeting, no rule in RONR would prevent this, but I think caution is still warranted. As parliamentarian, you should avoid doing anything which will undermine your appearance of impartiality.

You seem to be under the assumption that the rules for criminal trials in a court of law and disciplinary trials in a society are the same. I'm not sure where you got this idea, but it is mistaken. In a disciplinary trial in a society, the accused has a number of rights in connection with his trial, but he does not have the right to demand a public trial.

Yes, that's why I'm saying to simply put the motion on the agenda now. If the President truly believes the motion is in conflict with the bylaws and applicable law, he should not enforce it. He will then formally declare the board's motion to be invalid at the membership meeting. The reason I suggest this method is because there appears to be doubt regarding whether the board will meet in time to address this issue. If it is possible for the board to meet in time, it would certainly be preferable for the chairman to make this ruling at a board meeting. The proper procedure is for the President, at a board meeting, to rule the motion out of order and null and void due to the conflict with applicable law. No. Adopted motions may not be withdrawn.

The rules requiring the secrecy of disciplinary proceedings are intended to protect both the accused and the society. In order to have a trial in open session, rather than in executive session, both the accused and the society (or the committee, in this case) would have to agree to this.

Put the resolution on the agenda. At the membership meeting, the president can rule the board's motion invalid.

The committee would make such decisions, although the parent assembly may also give instructions on such matters if it wishes.

If you are a member of the society in question, you have a right to view the current bylaws and the minutes. You do not, strictly speaking, have a right to copies of the bylaws or the minutes, but such a request is routinely granted in most societies, and RONR does note that it is a good practice to give all members a copy of the bylaws. There is no right in RONR to see past versions of the bylaws or any amendments to the bylaws, but if such documents are kept, it would seem to me that such a request would generally be granted. This information could be gathered from the minutes, which members do have a right to view. If you are not a member of the society, you do not have a right to view the bylaws or the minutes.

It is ultimately up to your organization to interpret its own bylaws, but personally, I do not see how "vote on bylaw change" can be viewed as "reasonable notice." The purpose of a notice requirement is to give members enough information to determine whether they wish to attend the meeting. Notice that there will be some sort of change to the bylaws, but no information regarding the nature of the change, does not seem to satisfy that requirement. The robocall is more debatable. RONR would not permit it, but since your bylaws are so vague on the subject, it may well be acceptable. I would attack the vagueness of the notice rather than the form of it, since that seems to be the stronger argument. In the future, you should certainly amend the bylaws to clarify what is sufficient notice.

Yes. The spot may not remain uncontested. Perhaps the society will choose to reopen nominations, or perhaps there will be write-in votes the second time.

Yes, the bylaws may prescribe the quorum for the board. If no quorum is specified, the default is a majority of the board members (which would be 8 for your board, assuming you have no vacancies). If this is too high for your board, the society can and should set a more appropriate quorum in the bylaws, which could be expressed as a set number of members, or as a proportion of the number of members of the board (or a combination thereof). RONR suggests that the quorum be set at "as large a number of members as can reasonably be depended on to be present at any meeting, except in very bad weather or other exceptionally unfavorable conditions." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 346) If you wish, you can even provide in your bylaws that the quorum shall be the number of members in attendance, as one of your members suggested. This would mean, however, that if only one board member shows up, he has the full power of the board... so I would not advise this course of action. The quorum requirement exists for a reason.

Yes, but the difference is that the term "President" quite clearly refers to the President. The term "chair" however, when used in the context of a meeting, is ambiguous. It might refer to the regular presiding officer, or it might refer to the current presiding officer. Try changing the wording in your analogous example to "the Chair shall appoint all committees" and see if you think this is still an easy question.

If that is what they want, then they certainly would need a bylaws-level rule. I am inclined, however, to take the OP at his word that the rule is intended to permit the society to postpone the election until suitable candidates can be found.

The rule in RONR which provides that the chairman shall vote only if his vote would affect the result or if the vote is taken by ballot applies to whoever is presiding at the time. This rule does not apply in committees. The chair is free to vote in all cases in meetings of a committee. If a vote is tied, the motion fails. There is no tie-breaking vote. Your organization appears to have its own rules on this subject, and it is up to your organization to interpret its own rules.

1.) No, the Executive Committee may not authorize absentee voting, and the Executive Committee must make the decision itself at a properly called EC meeting, but there is nothing wrong with the EC seeking the opinions of the affiliate units before making its decision. 2.) Correct. Since this is isn't an official vote anyway (see above), however, I'm not sure that really matters.

I would think so. Well, there may be advantages to placing it in the bylaws. Perhaps the society wants to have the ability to A.) postpone the election before it is actually pending and/or B.) postpone the election beyond the next regular meeting (or beyond a quarterly time interval).

If there are lawyers and cease and desist letters involved, you need legal advice, not parliamentary advice.

Yes, I don't think anyone is recommending that the society attempt to remove an officer without their knowledge, even if this may be technically possible.

Well, I'm not sure. Is this "give them their meeting view" of yours based on the idea that an adjourned meeting was established? If so, I suppose we only disagree on the facts. If you are sticking with this view whether or not an adjourned meeting was established, then I think we have a much larger disagreement. My understanding of the facts is that there was no mention whatsoever of the new meeting until the day after the original meeting had adjourned. This seems to make it quite clear that this is not an adjourned meeting, and therefore, the new meeting is certainly null and void. If the bylaws are silent regarding special meetings, then the chairman has no authority to call a special meeting, despite his assertions to the contrary.