Josh Martin

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.

No. These two things have nothing to do with each other. The fact that certain provisions in the bylaws require membership approval for certain actions does not mean that membership approval is required to adopt those provisions. The rules are the same as for any other amendment to the bylaws, and the provisions you have cited quite clearly give that power to the board.

What do your bylaws say regarding amendments to the bylaws?

I think a reasonable argument could be made that giving $700 is a substantially different question than giving $1,800 (and it appears the assembly agreed with this).

Yes, I think this is correct. Additionally, rescinding the bylaws would have the effect of dissolving the organization. If the VP is dissatisfied with the contents of the bylaws, what would make more sense is for the Vice President to propose a general revision of the bylaws.

The President may rule a motion adopted by the board out of order, if the motion conflicts with some rule, although such a ruling is subject to appeal. He may not simply overrule a board decision because he disagrees with it, unless the bylaws grant the President such unusual authority.

It could be either. A parliamentary inquiry is a question about parliamentary procedure, while a Point of Order is a statement that a rule has been violated, which forces the chair to rule on the point. So a member might ask, "Mr. Chairman, is the member's amendment germane to the resolution?" This would be in the nature of a parliamentary inquiry. On the other hand, the member might say, "Point of Order! The member's amendment is not germane to the resolution." This would be in the nature of a Point of Order.

So far as RONR is concerned, the only members who count toward the quorum are members who are actually present. If your organization's rules provide otherwise, it is up to your organization to interpret those rules.

It is in order for the board to do this.

What kind of meeting are you talking about? If you have a board which consists of these five officers (and no one else), then three of them need to be present for a quorum. Even without a quorum, you can still have an official meeting, you just can't conduct any business. On the other hand, if you're talking about a meeting of the membership, you don't need any of the officers to be present. So long as there is a quorum, a meeting could be held and business conducted even if all of the officers were absent. The society could elect a Chairman Pro Tempore and a Secretary Pro Tempore and hold the meeting.

It's your organization that is making a sham of this, not Robert's Rules. As has been stated several times, RONR's position is that the minutes should simply say that the motion was adopted.

It seems extremely unlikely that the bylaws (or applicable law) grant a single individual the authority to create additional qualifications for office.

Do you mean to say that they use plurality voting? Preferential voting is "ranked voting." A majority vote is still required. Well, apparently they have not adopted RONR or any parliamentary authority so they can do things like use plurality voting for the election of officers with simply a custom.

It is certainly correct that, in the long term, the bylaws should be amended to remove the ambiguity, but until that occurs, the board (and ultimately, the membership) must interpret the provision as best as it can. It is not proper to simply ignore the bylaws because they are unclear. If it is correct that the bylaws require an election by the membership to fill the vacancy, then that is what must occur, and the board's election is null and void.

If the motion is, in fact, contrary to the board bylaws, then it is null and void.