Josh Martin

I think the explanation makes perfect sense, but if it is correct that the new members are not yet members of the Executive Committee, then they may not vote at meetings of the Executive Committee. I think the workaround is to consider these appointments "unofficial" at first, and for a formal vote to be taken when the new members of the Executive Committee take office. Alternately, the current members of the Executive Committee could agree to elect the candidates that the new Executive Committee members have chosen.

I don't think that's the right analogy. If a member makes a motion to grant another member's request, no second is required, because it is presumed that the member making the request also wishes for the request to be granted. The situation seems to be the same here. I would say that no second is required, provided that the officer is a member of the assembly.

No. A vote is required to accept the member's resignation, but a majority vote is sufficient for that. It must be understood, however, that this is not the same thing as expelling the member for life. This distinction might matter if the member changes his mind and wishes to rejoin the organization in the future.

RONR has its own suggested wording for adopting RONR as the society's parliamentary authority, which can be found here: http://www.robertsrules.com/authority.html I'd say the danger of ranking unwritten "traditions" above RONR, beyond the difficulty of simply remembering them, is heated debate over how long-standing a practice must be for it to be a "tradition." Custom was highlighted in the 11th edition to clarify the role of custom. What is said on this matter in the 11th edition has always been the rule - it simply has not been as clearly stated until now.

I'm not sure the motion is in order at an annual meeting at all. It would seem to me that the rule requires that removal be done at a special meeting. Richard, I think the reason for the OP's question is that the rule regarding removal specifically refers to "a special general meeting," and the question is what vote would be required to remove a director at a regular annual meeting of the general membership.

No. Depending on what exactly the member is dissatisfied with, his appropriate course of action might be to move for a recount, to raise a Point of Order (followed by an Appeal if necessary), or to simply live with his dissatisfaction.

The Secretary should instead ask Member A who he intends to nominate instead. He may speak in favor of his preferred candidate if he wishes. The position of chairman is an essential office for a deliberative assembly. If the President and Vice President are not present, the assembly must elect someone to preside. There is no question on this, and there is therefore nothing to debate. The members may debate who to elect, and thus, the nominations are debatable.

An organization may, if it wishes, authorize its officers and committees to spend funds up to a certain amount, or up to the amount allocated in the budget, or whatever, but nothing in RONR grants them this authority. Other organizations will adopt a budget simply to serve as a guide. If your organization's committees have customarily requested authorization for expenditures, even those which are budgeted for, it seems like the latter is the case in your organization. If you wish to give committees more freedom in this regard, you are free to propose a rule on the subject.

What exactly do you mean by "electronic voting?" That may or may not be required. It's not yet clear whether the OP is referring to absentee voting or members simply using electronic voting devices.

Okay, but in such a situation, the next step would be to reconsider the original motion, so that it may be defeated, or amended to something more practical.

This depends on how much authority the assembly has delegated to this committee.

In order for the business to be acted upon, yes. Because the next regular meeting is more than a quarterly interval away, all business "falls to the ground." The EC may act on such items of business as it wishes, and any items of business may be reintroduced at the next meeting. Yes, this seems fine.

Yes.

1.) These are not mutually exclusive. The individual is a full member of the association, but at a board meeting, he is a guest. 2.) Yes, there is. That is part of the reason it was out of order. Your rules permit members of the association to address the board if they request to be put on the agenda. Nothing in your rules (or in RONR) permits members of the association to raise a point of personal privilege at a board meeting. 3.) This argument does have merit. The board member's point of order, and the chair's ruling, should be recorded in the minutes. That does not mean the point of personal privilege needs to be recorded. 4.) The Point of Order and subsequent ruling were based on the fact that this person was not a member of the board and was not recognized, so I don't think the substance of the point of personal privilege is "necessary... for completeness or clarity."

Dan, if the board accepts an officer's resignation, with an effective date in the future, and prior to the effective date the officer wishes to continue serving, is the only way for the board to grant this request to elect the officer to fill the vacancy caused by his own resignation? Or is there another option?

The OP's other thread was slightly more descriptive regarding the nature of the rules the candidates are alleged to have violated. Apparently, among other things, one of the candidates violated some sort of "posting policy," although the exact nature of the policy or the violation are not clear. I had not linked to the other thread previously because it had no bearing on the parliamentary situation.

Richard, I think the issue here is that whether the assembly did, in fact, approve this action is in dispute.

I imagine that the OP's argument is that, because this is a state university, the university and its student government are entities of the state government, and therefore, the limitations on campaigning violate the first amendment rights of the candidates. I haven't the slightest idea whether a court will find this argument to be persuasive, but it's the only argument I can think of.

Yes, I think so. Another idea to consider (not for this election, but for future elections) is to lobby the student government to change the rules, and/or to elect candidates who promise to change the rules.

This article is very interesting, but I don't think it changes anything I have said.

If a motion or a rule in the bylaws is in conflict with an applicable procedural rule in state or federal law, then the motion or rule is null and void. Conflicts with other rules in the law are legal issues, not parliamentary issues. Your question was primarily about the US Constitution, and I am not aware of any section of the constitution addressing meeting procedure for university student governments. There may very well be procedural rules in state or federal law (state would be more likely) which apply to your organization, but that is a question for a lawyer. Okay, so there might be something to the idea that this provision poses constitutional problems, but you really need to talk to a lawyer if you wish to pursue this further.

It factors in to the extent that you need a lawyer, not a parliamentarian. But before you run off to do that, a quick question: is this a public university, or a private university?

So what exactly do you mean by "unconstitutional?" Are you suggesting that your organization has a Constitution and bylaws, and the rule in the bylaws conflicts with your organization's constitution? If that is the case, the rule in the Constitution takes precedence. In the short term, the vote tallies must be corrected, and in the long term, the bylaws must be amended. Statements you have made here and in your other thread on the same subject, however, suggest that you are instead concerned that the provision of your organization's bylaws is in conflict with the Constitution of the United States. If that is your concern, this issue is well beyond the pay grade of this humble forum, and you will need to seek legal advice.

The general principle is that a specific rule trumps a general one. So if you add the proposed rule, the two rules taken together will mean that no person can serve in more than one elected office, except that if the Treasurer becomes incapacitated, the Secretary can fulfill the unexpired term. For the sake of clarity and inclusivity, however, I would suggest that you use "if the office of Treasurer becomes vacant" instead of "if the Treasurer becomes incapacitated." In this situation, you are dealing with the death of a Treasurer, but in the future, you might have a resignation or removal from office. Depending on the reason for the resignation or removal from office, I'm not sure I would define that as "incapacitated." The term "vacant" covers all your bases.

For starters, I think it is important to make clear how a nominating committee works in RONR. So far as RONR is concerned, the role of the nominating committee is to nominate one person for each open office - the person who, in the nominating committee's opinion, is the best candidate for office. It is not the nominating committee's job to nominate every candidate who is eligible, qualified, and willing to serve. The nominees from the committee are just recommendations. Others are free to make their own nominations from the floor. My recommendations are based upon this type of nominating committee. If your own bylaws provide that your nominating committee works differently, that would be important to know. The main advantage to such a system is that a small group can be tasked with making nominations. What exactly this involves may vary from society to society. In some organizations, the nominating committee's role might be to apply pressure to members so that someone actually runs for each open office. In others, their role might be to sort through multiple applications and make their recommendation regarding the candidate who is, in their opinion, the most qualified for the office. In very large organizations, where many members may have little knowledge of the candidates or their qualifications, the nominating committee can serve to have a small group of experienced members who are more knowledgeable on these matters advise the society. Finally, the committee's recommendations are not the final word. If the membership finds a more qualified candidate - perhaps because they disagree with the committee's assessment, or someone comes out of the woodwork at the last minute, the membership is free to elect that person instead of the nominee recommended by the committee. The main disadvantage to such a system is that it can have the effect of giving an enormous amount of influence to a small group of people. In some organizations, challenging the nominating committee is so rare as to be unheard of, and the nominating committee's recommendation becomes tantamount to election. If this is because no one else is interested, or because the membership truly agrees with the committee's decision, then that's one thing... but if it is because the assembly is afraid to challenge the committee, then that's quite another. A nominating committee can also often become a way to continually elect the same officers (or their hand-picked successors). It's also possible that the committee is simply useless and it's recommendations carry very little thought behind them. Many of these problems occur because the assembly fails to take the task of electing the nominating committee seriously. In the end, it comes down to what works best for your organization. I have seen organizations where nominating committees have been a tremendous boon to the society and others where they have been a disaster. There is no one answer that will work for every organization.