Joshua Katz

That's up to the secretary. Until they are approved by the assembly, they aren't minutes - they are the secretary's notes, and will only become minutes upon being approved. The secretary can do whatever he'd like to write them, including consulting with others to make sure he's got it right, but he isn't obligated to do it. What he is obligated to do is come to the next meeting with draft minutes to present. The assembly will ultimately make sure they are correct in the approval process.

In general, honorifics given to one person at a time are not maintained after leaving office, while those which refer to many people simultaneously are. In the former case, they may be used if modified so as not to imply current occupancy, e.g. "The 43rd President of the United States." (As far as this rule is concerned, it is proper to refer to Hillary Clinton as "Secretary Clinton" since there are several Cabinet Secretaries at a time, except in a context where it clearly refers to the State Department. It is improper, in my opinion, for other reasons, and I think she should be referred to as "Senator Clinton." The reasons are both that I think the rule of referring to people by their "highest rank" is being misapplied. First, elective positions should outweigh appointive positions in such a consideration. Second, Secretary is not a rank at all (it's a role), and so not her highest rank, while Senator is a rank. Cabinet member is also a rank, but we don't call them Member X for other reasons.) Within a state, therefore, and in the context of state government, a former Governor is not called Governor, but rather referred to by a similar formula, or simply as The Honorable, which may be used by any former elected official. In a broader context, though, such a person may be called Governor, such as when running for President, since, on the national scene, there are many Governors at once. Within the organization, it seems to me, there is only one chairman, and therefore he should not be referred to by that title, but rather former chairman, the 34th chairman, or the like. Outside the organization, there are many chairmen, and hence no reason he cannot use the term.

Well, good. We can't answer legal questions here, but in my opinion all went fine, in the end, from a parliamentary standpoint. Incidentally, while someone may or may not have been trying to pull a fast one (we've only heard your side, after all), I don't think they chose a very good way to do so, or, at least, they chose one that is easily thwarted so long as members are doing what they're supposed to do - namely, paying attention to inaccuracies in the minutes. From a parliamentary standpoint (as opposed to legal), they chose a poor means for a second reason: modifying the minutes doesn't actually change history, just how history is recorded. That is, the minutes are evidence as to what happened, but if (to use a more extreme example) they had simply had the minutes say "the motion was not adopted," it would still have been adopted, and you would still be able to insist on enforcing it as a point of order, you'd just have a tougher argument (and you might want to fight on the minutes first). However, I realize that in this instance, there is legal significance to the minutes (which, in many states, extends to the minutes needing to be significantly different than they would be under RONR).

Well, on a side note, a vote on approval of the minutes is not the proper procedure. Rather, the chair should ask for changes, and once all changes are dealt with, declare the minutes (sigh) approved. But, back on point - then what happened? The commission received inaccurate minutes. We're not told, though, what was done about it. What should have been done, for future reference (sigh) is that you should move to amend the minutes so that they read correctly. None of the out of meeting actions described are, so far as RONR is concerned, the right way to deal with the problem. By the way, are these proper, RONR-style, minutes, or more similar to a transcript? This is not quite the right thing to be flabbergasted about. Minutes, before being approved, are just notes - in particular, the Secretary's notes. The Secretary doesn't necessarily need to provide them to anyone before the meeting. If they are presented to someone, the Secretary is free to include, or not, any suggestions. However, in this case, we're told they came from the "recording clerk." If this is similar to the municipality where I was on Planning, that would be an employee, who is subject to instruction from the chair between meetings (and instructions from the committee more generally). But none of that is the point, because what matters is what the commission approves.

Yes. But it is not obligated to maintain a system of bookkeeping allowing for such designations, and so on.

I don't know that I agree. If the bylaws require a person to pay, I'm not convinced someone else paying on his behalf will work.

I agree, except that this is nothing to fear.

Yes.

Well, I agree with that entirely - rules protect rights, including the right of the organization to stability. The fact remains that they are for groups of people who care.

It's not clear to me why varying the voting method solves the problem - the basic premise, it seems to me, of majority rule is "we could beat you up, so what say we skip it and just do what we want?" At least, that's the case in political contexts. In ordinary organizations, it seems, it has more logic to support it. But in the political context, what stops the majority from simply refusing to seat people it doesn't want there? What stops a multi-district majority, not enjoying a majority in particular districts, from just threatening civil war? In any case, the point is, in the parliamentary context, we're there because we want to be, and because we want the organization to work.

Such an appeal should be ruled dilatory as there is second reasonable option. Yes, yes, but if you appeal three times and put the question yourself... Organizations are, in the end, groups of people who see value in combining efforts, assets, and other things, under an agreed upon set of rules. They are like mini-states, except that membership is voluntary. Sure, a sufficiently motivated majority can find its way around the rules - but then, you have a majority (at least of those present and voting) who, truth be told, no longer find it beneficial to be bound by these rules. Either it is a temporary majority, in which case the minority should make use of such rules as reconsider and enter, or it is a true majority - in which case the minority, seeing itself trodden upon, should see its way out of the organization. Now, remember that the whole point was a joining of efforts, assets, and other things for a common purpose. The fact that the minority is capable of no longer contributing its efforts, assets, and other things, is itself a reason the majority should follow the rules. If the majority finds that going around the rules is more beneficial, good for them - the minority is better off without them, and can go start their own organization with people who don't, in effect, steal from them. Regarding the efforts the minority has already put in - it can be hard to recognize that one has wasted energy, but that is part of life. Regarding the assets, the minority should try to find ways to withdraw those assets. The rules might permit it, if they are being followed. If not, the rules are, as discussed earlier, for those who choose to follow them. For those who do not, there is litigation (and other forms of legally binding dispute resolution). Just the threat is usually enough to dislodge the assets. In brief, you're right, the rules can be ignored at will. The point is that people who want to associate also want to follow the rules, because that's part of what it means to associate. Edited to add: By the way, this isn't unique to parliamentary procedure. Why do Presidents, in command of the executive branch - also known as "the one with the guns" listen to courts? While only one President has, to my knowledge, said "the Court has spoken, now let it enforce its words," more than one has behaved accordingly. Most of the time, they listen - because they care about the rule of law. Why does Congress, whose members can't just quit (well, they can, but not the constituencies they represent) follow parliamentary rules, consulting its parliamentarians regularly? (For instance, the Senate Parliamentarian advised the Senate that the recent tax reform law could not be called the "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act," but rather "An act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to titles II and V of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018" - that's not a very meaningful example, but it pops into my mind, and it was entirely unenforceable - the parliamentarian can only give advice, and there would be no particular political price to pay for ignoring such a rule.) Again, because it is composed of people who, by and large, care to abide by the rules. If you have a majority that doesn't, I agree, requirements for supermajorities, and other rules, will be ignored.

Out of curiosity, did your board ever adjourn its first meeting?

I once held a special meeting in a bank lobby to address this...

It was my understanding that three's company, too.

Runaway boards are only a problem so long as the membership allows them to run away. Gather some other members and come up with a plan to assert yourselves. Just about everything described here is incorrect, not just as a matter of formal rules, but as a matter of basic rights and organizational governance (unless, of course, your bylaws say something different). Let's start here: do your bylaws authorize proxy voting? Boards should not preside over meetings (and I don't see how more than one person can preside, as a matter of practice). If your rules allow proxies, what do they say about their operation? A membership meeting should not be just about being told what changes the board is making. The membership, not the board, is in charge, and the board has only those powers given in the bylaws - which the membership can amend (see disclaimer above). The membership meeting should also be a chance for the members to make decisions including, potentially, overruling the board in areas in which your bylaws do not give the board exclusive authority.

Oh boy. Well, first, who is voting in this election - the membership or the board? If the election is among the membership, the board has no role in it at all, except that, if board members are also organization members, they can vote. The board does not decide what the ballots look like and so on. If the board is voting, on the other hand, there is nothing you can do (except to get a different board) since you cannot raise points of order at board meetings. But if it is the membership, you can raise a point of order - which will be decided, if an appeal is necessary, by the assembly, not the board - which, to emphasize, is not present as a board at membership meetings. If the assembly decides that the voting should be conducted properly, and somehow the board tries to exert itself (despite not being present as a board) and control your election, refer to the disciplinary process in chapter XX.

Well, a few things. First, it is correct that under small board rules the President votes with the others. However, to correct a few other things: in the "general" rules, the President does not vote only to break a tie, but rather whenever the vote will impact the outcome. There is no need to break a tie - a tie vote means the motion is not adopted. And the vote can change the outcome in more cases than a tie - for example, the presiding officer can vote to create a tie, thereby preventing the motion from being adopted, and can vote to give a 2/3 vote, or to deny one. In fact, under those rules, the President should not vote to break a tie if the President would vote against the motion. In any case, those rules apply only to the presiding officer, not to all the officers. Note also that they do not apply to the person of the President, but to the presiding officer. The President can hand off the gavel for the duration of the handling of a particular motion and then vote with the others, for example. If the President is absent and a Vice President is chairing the meeting, then that Vice President follows the rules just described. But, back to your question - a board of 7 is indeed a small board. As to a website, why not the FAQ you quote from here, and which happens to be on this very website? However, you should also own a copy of RONR, and if you do, I can also provide a page reference.

Well, unless your rules say to use a yes/no ballot, that's improper. Given that you are electing 2 people, if they are being elected to identical positions, there is a disagreement on this board about how to vote, but I'll give you the majority answer: voters can select up to two candidates. As to how to count votes that do show yes/no, well, don't let it happen. Raise a point of order before the vote begins. If you do that and people still use the yes/no boxes, then you have something more of a pickle. I would think that a yes should be counted as a vote for that candidate, and a no not counted at all, but others might disagree. (And, in accordance with the majority view here, if a ballot contains more than 2 yes votes, it is an illegal ballot and not counted, although it does count towards the number needed to secure a majority.)

I don't follow. Is the ballot blank, or does it have a candidate with yes/no checkboxes? You can have a balloted election without printed ballots. Like I said, you can use post-it notes if you want and have people write the candidate they prefer. I can get to the last question if you clarify what the ballots looked like.

According to the rules in RONR, a yes/no vote in an election for office is improper. If your bylaws say otherwise, you'd follow them. If your bylaws say nothing, then you should not have a yes/no ballot. If you are to have a balloted vote, it should simply list the candidates and allow space for write-ins (or be a post-it on which people write the name of their selected candidate(s), depending on the size and formality of your organization).

The issue here has to do with the bylaw amendment, not the election (so far as we know). If the election was conducted properly, the only people impacted are those occupying non-existent positions.

Do your bylaws say that there will be an election? If so, you should have an election. There could be nominations from the floor. Also, if they require a balloted vote, there must be a balloted vote.

Although, depending on the notice requirements, maybe they can give notice first, so that the new bylaw can be properly adopted at the same meeting as this ruling is made?

This is correct. Failure to follow the rules in your bylaws for their amendment voids any amendment supposedly adopted. (Does your board have the power to amend the bylaws?) You say "We know we can elect them again after doing it right," but in fact you only think that, you don't know it. The results of the vote on the bylaw amendment might be different if notice is provided.

The question that interests me is question 4. My answer is no, the notice requirement need not be the same as the motion requirement. By definition, notice is something you can use over time. At a meeting, motions may be made, debated, and voted on quickly. There is no time to research a motion made on the floor without notice. Furthermore, the rules for amendment seem crafted for a circumstance without a video display of the text as amended, without printed copies of motions and amendments, etc. They are designed to allow you to follow the debate and amendment process without having any visual aid in front of you, and do not allow anything that is confusing. Notice is a quite different circumstance, I think. I'd rather not get myself in trouble with the others here by venturing opinions on the other questions 😉