Atul Kapur

What do your bylaws say, exactly, about the President-Elect? ["second verse, same as the first"]

Now I'm confused again. Let me be very specific. What month was the general student body meeting where the election occurred? What month was the general student body meeting where the motion to Reconsider was made? Was there another regular meeting of the general student body after the one where the motion to Reconsider was made? If so, what month was that meeting held? If not, what month was it scheduled to be held?

Because you specify that this is an HOA, I will advise you to check the laws that apply to your HOA. Mr. Martin is correct about RONR, unsurprisingly, but it is common for the law on corporations -- and, perhaps, HOAs -- to say something different.

There may still be a way out of this. When was the next regular meeting of the general student body scheduled? If it was scheduled more than a "quarterly interval" in time ahead (for example, if it only meets once a year), then the suspending effect of the (improper) motion to Reconsider ended when the meeting did (because it does not sound like you had set an adjourned or continuing meeting). In that case, the election was final when the meeting of the general student body ended. And we go back to being able to raise a point of order about the Executive Board's improper second election. To answer this question we need to know what month the general student body meeting was held (Spring Break is different for different areas of the continent) and what month the next regular general student body meeting was scheduled to occur.

So the first election was final immediately after the results were announced and the chair declared the candidate elected as president. So the motion to Reconsider was improper from the start and should have been ruled out of order for that reason alone. The person who was elected at the first election is your president. That means that the second election is null and void. It does not matter when it done (the same day as the first election or a week later). It also does not matter who held the second election (the general student body meeting or the executive board). However, there may be a solution, depending on the circumstances. If it was the executive board that held the second election, then that is where the error was made and that is where the Point of Order should be raised. In that case: At a meeting of the executive board, a member (of the board) raises a point of order that the second election was improper and constitutes a continuing breach because it was in conflict with a previous valid election for the same term (that is, it's in conflict with the first election). The chair of the board meeting will rule. If you disagree with the ruling, then Appeal it.

An election, once final, cannot be reconsidered. "After an election has become final as stated in this paragraph, it is too late to reconsider (37) the vote on the election." (p. 444, lines 25-27) The OP has not given us enough information to know whether the initial election was final. So, Guest Anonymous, was the candidate who won the first election present when the results were announced (and did not decline) or, if absent, had they consented to their candidacy prior? If either of those is true, then I agree with Mr. Martin's response. If neither were true, then the motion to Reconsider may have been in order, but we would need more details to be certain.

To reinforce Mr. Martin's post above, here is a similar answer from a thread three years ago (which I was researching while Mr. Martin wrote his answer above).

Yes, that is what RONR says. But your Municipal Code can say something different, in which case you need to follow your Code.

It may be. The governing documents can deny any right(s) as the organization feels appropriate. Does the Municipal Code explicitly say that the public member is non-voting or just that they are ex officio? It is sometimes incorrectly assumed that ex officio automatically means non-voting. Also, it's unclear from your post what office the public member holds that makes them automatically a member of the committee.

If they are, as Mr. Elsman says, operating using unanimous consent, that's fine. As long as the members know that they have alternatives and that they do not have to do it that way.

As @Josh Martin says, there is nothing in RONR governing this situation. So I'm not going to debate on this forum whether my and Guest Chris's scenarios constitute conflicts of interest. That is for the organizations themselves to decide. I will reinforce my earlier advice. Either or both of the two organizations should develop codes of conduct for their board members if they feel that this is an issue of concern. I have seen some organizations choose this solution and it works for them.

"The kind of gathering in which parliamentary law is applicable is known as a deliberative assembly." RONR 11th ed, p. xxix

Just one example: the national level organization is considering a policy -- say, introducing a certain requirement for continued membership -- that works well for the national body and for the vast majority of the county-level organizations (who make up the national body's membership) but will adversely affect a small proportion. One person is on the national-body's board and on their county's board, which will be adversely affected (because their entire membership doesn't and can't meet that requirement).

If no business was conducted, just discussion, then it doesn't need to be included in the minutes. The rule is that the minutes capture what was done, not what was said. Your planning commission may not be used to that standard.

There is no contradiction. If the same group is in attendance at a future meeting, then yes they will overturn a ruling that they were incorrect at the first meeting. But, if a different group of members is in attendance, they can correct the error made at a previous meeting. Go back to my comment about honourable people. There is no "RONR police" so the rules can only be self-enforced.

Although it is easy to get that impression from RONR In Brief, in reality there are no time limits to use this motion. Specifically, it can be used even if it is at the same meeting where the motion was originally adopted. "Although reconsideration is the preferable procedure . . . when possible, an adopted main motion, at any time before or after it is too late to reconsider it, can be changed by means of the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted" (RONR 11th ed., p. 112, lines 2-6) One reason reconsideration would be preferable is that reconsideration only requires a majority vote. Because there is no opportunity to give notice for the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted, it would require a two-thirds vote or majority of the entire membership.

The assembly is the master of itself. It can certainly do as you described. Whether that is "proper" is the term the determination of the majority. If the action taken is actually in contravention of the bylaws, then this constitutes a continuing breach and a point of order can be raised at any future time as long as the breach continues (RONR 11th ed., p. 251, lines 9-10).

The former (bolded in the quote) General Robert reportedly said that his rules were intended to be used by honourable people. That assumption is not directly addressed in the book.

The actions taken would be the subject of a motion to ratify at a future, properly called meeting.

RONR doesn't even say what you claim it does. "No member should vote on a question to which he has a direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members of the organization." (RONR 11th ed., p. 407, lines 22-25). I don't believe that being a member of two related organizations is a direct personal interest. And note the word "should"; "no member can be compelled to refrain from voting in such circumstances." (lines 30-31) Either or both of the two organizations should develop codes of conduct for their board members if they feel that this is an issue of concern.

Thank you for expanding on my answer and explaining how they could do it if they wish to.

RONR says that most organizations don't need an agenda and use the Standard Order of Business as stated in the book. That Standard Order includes New Business and any member can introduce any proper item under New Business. If you use an agenda to control the items that will be raised at the meeting, that's up to you. However, the meeting itself has to approve the agenda, so the meeting can decide to add items when the agenda is up for approval. What authority are the Pastor and Deacons using (or say they are using) to control the agenda? It's definitely not RONR.

Completely tangential technical note: I edited my post 3 hours earlier, as the forum tells me. But the quote by Guest Jim in his post immediately above, which I'm told was posted 25 minutes before this one, doesn't incorporate the edit.

It does sound like you will have a fight on your hands, both to ensure that you are not forced off the board and in order to ensure that proper procedures followed during the meetings afterwards. Ideally, your board should receive some training in parliamentary procedure as what you described in your first post does not sound like it was proper. Even if the board does not accept that, you may want to consult a parliamentarian privately to ensure that you are as well armed as possible with the proper arguments and backed up by the proper references to RONR. Both the American Institute of Parliamentarians and the National Association of Parliamentarians have referral lists.

Is that the same as the Sample Rules on the 11th edition CD?