Chris Harrison

RONR doesn't answer your question. I would suggest as soon as the person becomes a member they propose a rule (or Bylaw amendment depending on the circumstances may be required) setting a time frame for the application to be approved or denied so prospective members aren't left in limbo. Another option is for the prospective member to contact a friend who is already a member to propose the rule or try to light a fire under the "Executive" to get him or her off their duffs.

8 because 7 isn't more than 7 1/3.

Not totally. RONR specifies the Chair's default duties but the Bylaws may add to and/or remove some of those duties. Even if this person doesn't follow those duties he or she is still legitimately the Chair (he or she was elected to that position...correct?) but not a very good one who should be removed from office as soon as possible.

What if the Board member wasn't at the meeting (the language cited makes it sound like if it were done at a regular meeting the Board member may not have had any warning)? My thought is they should treat it the same as when they notify a member charges have been preferred and send him or her a letter using a method providing a confirmation of delivery such as Registered Mail with delivery confirmation.

Nope. There is nothing in RONR that would prevent the candidates (and their allies) from doing their own politicking and shake those bushes to make sure everyone who supports that particular candidate gets their ballot sent in. It sounds like the Corresponding Secretary has her own preferences as to who wins (which is fine) and is doing her own politicking (which is also fine as long as she isn't using her position as custodian of the returned ballots to do anything nefarious such as making votes for another candidate "disappear" mysteriously) but as they say "what is good for the goose is also good for the gander."

I personally don't see a problem with the Corresponding Secretary reaching out to members who haven't sent in their ballots especially if ballot returns typically are low and a certain number of ballots need to be returned in order for the vote to be valid. That being said, while there isn't a rule prohibiting her from telling others who have sent in their ballots and who haven't it really isn't anyone's business and she shouldn't be making it her business to tell them.

What do the Bylaws say regarding discipline? Who do they say can implement disciplinary proceedings?

As far as RONR is concerned only members of the body which is meeting (the Board) have any rights (RONR pp. 648-649). So if you aren't a Board member you have no rights. In other words, unless some superior rule (Bylaws or applicable law) says otherwise the lawyer is correct.

I'm sure there are some things in the Bylaws that are more important to the organization's existence than others. That being said they should obey the Bylaws no matter how unimportant or inconvenient they may find them. I agree there is often a correlation between running a meeting in a less-than-democratic manner and their decisions not truly reflecting the assembly's will. Does RONR bestow the Chair with that power...no...but apparently the assembly by not immediately setting him or her straight is allowing the Chair to run roughshod over certain members. It is not proper to specifically target a single member except in cases of discipline. However, there are ways for the assembly to alter RONR's default rules on debate. They can shorten speeches, they can lengthen them, they can order no more debate on the pending question and it be immediately voted on, and so on.

If the rest of the members are fine with the way this Chair is doing things there is nothing (under RONR) that you can do to change things. However, since this is an HOA there may be laws in place that can do something (or maybe not) so I would suggest you do some research.

At a minimum a member of the City Council should have called the President to order and be prepared to Appeal an adverse ruling (which is likely since it was the President himself who was misbehaving) and taking disciplinary action against him might not be out of line either. In addition the member(s) of the public who were attacked should look into what sort of actions they can take against the President and Council for having their character publicly maligned.

My first suggestion (if it isn't already being done) is to hold the election by ballot. My second would be to reopen nominations (and debate on them) so the existing candidates can try to convince voters to switch to his or her side and/or maybe a compromise candidate will be nominated that a majority of the members can live with. Besides that I'm not sure what options you have if applicable law prevents you from Suspending the Rules to allow the winner to be picked in another way (such as drawing the high card, drawing the short straw, playing a game of HORSE, etc).

Why does she think she needs the President's permission to email the rest of the Board? Is there a rule stating such? If there is no rule then nothing in RONR prohibits her from talking to whoever she wants by whatever means she wants. That being said, no business can be conducted by email (or in any other way outside of a meeting) unless the Bylaws specifically permits it. By that I mean that while she (and the rest of the Board) can discuss what the Committee's been up to and what they want the Board to do in regards to it, none of that discussion constitutes decisions that are binding on the Board.

First, do your Bylaws specifically permit the use of mail-in ballots? If they don't then you can't use them (RONR pp. 423-424). Second, did the members who wanted a voice vote follow all notice requirements in the Bylaws for their amendment?

RONR says it is up to you all to interpret your own rules (RONR pp. 588-589). However, since there are legal issues here I would suggest you all contact the agency who deals with nonprofits in your State for their advice since I'm sure you wouldn't be the first people to have the same question.

We can't speak to legal here. Are you a member of the public attending the meeting or are you a member of body which is meeting (you can speak in debate and vote)? Members (of the body which is meeting) have rights. Nonmembers don't (as far as RONR is concerned).

Disciplinary Procedures

If your Bylaws don't specifically provide for Special (Board) Meetings then you unfortunately can't have them (RONR p. 92) so anything you do in tonight's meeting would be null and void (RONR p. 251[a]). I would suggest you cancel it and get a Special Meeting of the General Membership set up as soon as possible.

Another amendment perhaps. However, while the Appeal is debated you can cite RONR p. 401 ll. 8-11 which defines a two-thirds vote. Hopefully that'll convince them the Chair erred and they'll overturn the decision.

RONR doesn't impose any limits on what sort of business that can be conducted in Executive Session. However, your rules or applicable laws might so you should do your research.

I agree it is unusual wording (was it perhaps language taken from the original Robert's Rules in the 1870s?). My takeaway from the section is the member should never make it personal.

It would definitely be rude but whether it violated decorum depends on the circumstances. I can think of cases where while such an inquiry would be very tasteless it would (if properly asked) be a valid question which would not (in my opinion) violate decorum. In addition, the Board should be wary about removing someone simply because of him or her having a disability because that can cause them a whole new set of problems beyond what they currently may be dealing with.

Then the employees would probably be seeking authorization from the Board or General Membership to take some sort of action every week if not more often. Definitely not a feasible long term situation.

I agree the Board could adopt this rule but I doubt they did and that is why I suggested the OP research where this authority comes from if it indeed exists.

I would not be surprised if the Bylaws or a rule adopted by the Board or General Membership grants the organization's employees the authority to take certain types of actions without having to go to the Board or General Membership for permission. Directing the lawyer write a letter to someone is likely one of those actions.