Joshua Katz

Is it? I think the langage here is unintelligible so I have no idea what the current quorum is.

And limitations on what may be discussed in closed sessions as well. Which is a fair question - if the board vots to go into executive session improperly, or conducts improper business or discussion in executive session, it violates the law, but is it still confidential? The answer will likely vary by state because it is a legal issue, not a parliamentary one. As to calling a vote a survey, RONR prohibits straw polls, and if you're taking action based on a "survey" it was clearly a vote.

Well, she and 2/3 of those voting on the question.

I guess none if you don't adopt something.

The RONR answer is no, but in most organizations the answer is yes, and the organization's rules prevail.

Right, but it says to conduct a voice vote, then you turn to RONR to see how to conduct a voice vote. And RONR says that, in this instance, a voice vote is conducted by declaring the candidate elected.

Well, that's interesting. I still don't think you get out of allowing nominations by screwing up in March, but it says what it says. My thought is that nominations can still be reopened by motion, though. I don't think that's what we're saying. I don't see how what you said is different from Mr. Honemann's summary.

Of what? The Chair is wrong. I'm going to choose not to get into this. Well this is not great language, and so your organization will have to wrestle with what the EC may do. In the long run, the language should be amended. Do your bylaws allow email voting? If so, what do they say about procedure? I'm in no position to sort out the facts or determine if there was deceit, and in any case that's not a parliamentary question.

It's only relevant when the parliamentarian is a member. When not a member, of course he may not vote or enter into debate. The chair's voting or debating does not enter into it, and the parliamentarian, unlike the chair, is expected to be impartial in small boards and committees as well.

I disagree that it is moot. You could have chosen, it sounds like, not to go to the membership. But you didn't, and the membership spoke, a voice the board may not overrule. Unless, of course, your bylaws give the board exclusive authority over such expenditures. I said that because we often get questions that say things like "our board is running our election in a way we don't like," and I wanted to emphasize that the board does not do anything at membership meetings. A few things. First, no one can force the president to take advice from, or not take advice from, anyone. So if the president wants to ask you a question, it doesn't matter that your organization has a parliamentarian, for this purpose. Second, just to be clear, parliamentarians have no real power. The parliamentarian is simply an advisor to the chair, and the chair may or may not take the advice offered.

Reconsider is inappropriate, for a variety of reasons. The way to ask the membership to place an ad tha it voted down is just to make the motion again. But it sounds like you've already placed the ad, in which case the board should ask the membership to ratify and hope they do, otherwise the board will be paying the price of the ad. It is no answer to say, well, we (the board) screwed up, so now you (the members) can't nominate anyone, and have to accept the nominees provided by the nomination committee. Instead, you should allow nominations at the elections meeting, at least. And by you, really, I mean the president, who will be presiding,not the board, since boards don't run membership meetings.

Given this information, i tend to agree with Mr. Honemann (always a safe bet anyway).

I'd like the know more about the proposed substitute. Was it proposing an amendment (or several) to the county bylaws, or was it a motion to "amend the county bylaws"?

With some hesitation, I'll take a stab. Note: I've argued similar points before in organizations I was a member of, and did not convince a majority, so take it with a grain of salt. RONR states that the chair's decision stands unless and until overturned on appeal. The chair's decision has not been overturned on appeal. Therefore, it stands, and so they may not vote.

If I may pick a likely inconsequential nit: special meetings may not consider any business not in the call of the meeting. That is different from requiring an agenda and prohibiting it from being amended.

While you're working on that, let's be clear that they may purport to have changed your bylaws, but they have not actually done so if they did not follow the rules for doing so. Raise a point of order when appropriate at a meeting, and have people prepared to appeal and to second that appeal.

No.

No, you cannot suspend bylaws (with certain exceptions not applicable here). You can amend them, or you can follow them, but there's no in-between for bylaws not meeting those two exceptions.

I certainly have never understood it that way, although I guess that doesn't tell us whether a lot of people haven't.

Good. The two are different and law degrees come with an unshakeable belief that the holder knows parliamentary procedure without study. That's not the best way to fill a parliamentarian position, but it is what it is. No the first (unless you have strange bylaws that require it). As to the second, you'll need to consult your bylaws, but if they do not provide a threshold, it is a 2/3 vote with previous notice (not 2/3 of the membership, but a vote at a membership meeting exceeding the 2/3 threshold), or a majority of the entire membership voting in the affirmative.

I don't think OP is talking about debate, though.

I agree there's some ambiguity here for your organization to iron out. In my personal opinion, this is not enough to take away parliamentary rights. If it ended with "privileges," I'd think it a harder case, but the list following the general term tells us the general term is not a catch-all, but rather is catching things like the list. Parliamentary rights are not like activities are trips.

Well the President can give the President's Report, but there's no rule that no one else can make a remark about it, whenever making remarks is in order, subject to the usual decorum rules.

And, to prevent an unending chain of executive sessions, the executive session that just approves the previous executive session minutes approves its own short minutes during the executive session.

Well, based on the above, I too agree that the Board acts improperly. But boards do that when the general membership lets them. Why is the Board conducting the annual meeting at all? Other than the chair of the board presiding, the board is not even present as such at annual meetings, let alone running them. The members need to take back the organization from this run-away board.