Atul Kapur

One way to do it is to record: "Without objection, the assembly moved into executive session."

If no one objected at the time, it sounds like the assumed motion to go into executive session was adopted by unanimous consent. See RONR (12th ed.) 4:58 - 4:59, particularly the opening phrase " In cases where there seems to be no opposition in routine business ..."

This is a complicated process. Rather than rely on what this individual (who may be biased) tells you is in RONR, or try to learn it quickly, you may want to hire a professional parliamentarian who has experience in this area and can provide unbiased, knowledgeable advice.

I agree with the above response that one person can give notice. However, once the motion is moved, at the next meeting, it still needs to be seconded.

Nothing in the excerpt you quoted says that. The vote required is 3/4 of the entire board, but I don't see anything that says the entire board must be present. So, for example, if your board has 12 members, then 9 affirmative votes are required to impose discipline. So will you need at least 9 to be present to be able to achieve that threshold, but 1, 2, or 3 could be absent.

See "Remedies for Abuse of Authority by the Chair in a Meeting" 62:2-62:9, particularly 62:9 in this case where an appeal is ignored.

Yes, I was referring to the carrying out of the actions by these members, as opposed to the decisions of the group-calling-itself-a-committee.

No, it does not. You may find guidance in your bylaws or other governing documents that, hopefully, specify the authority of the board and the officers. If they are lacking, your organization should consider developing and approving policies to clarify these and put them in writing for future reference.

Lots of problems, here, including more than one person speaking at once. No, but that's not what happened according to your description. The president did not ignore the motion but ruled the motion was not in order ("The president said he was not going to accept the motion"). This sounds correct, based on your description and the fact that this was a special meeting and 9:15 says "The only business that can be transacted at a special meeting is that which has been specified in the call of the meeting." The president's ruling could have been appealed at the time. It is too late to appeal it now. Well, the chair was correct, so that wouldn't be a reason to doubt the validity of any business that was actually transacted. If the motion that the president ruled out of order was, nevertheless, considered and adopted, that motion is still not valid; again quoting from 9:15 "If, at a special meeting, action is taken relating to business not mentioned in the call, that action, to become valid, must be ratified (see 10:54–57) by the organization at a regular meeting (or at another special meeting properly called for that purpose)."

In the example cited, there is a better way to proceed "21:15 When it appears that there is no further business in a meeting of an ordinary local society that normally goes through a complete order of business (41) at each regular meeting (9), the chair, instead of waiting or calling for a motion to adjourn, can ask, “Is there any further business?” If there is no response, the chair can then say, “Since there is no further business, the meeting is adjourned.” " See 49:21(7) and 49:21(7)n4, which contrast the small board rules with the general rule. Also see 3:9

If I were presiding, I would call the member to order as soon as they used the word, in your example, "ugly" and not allow them to proceed. If the chair doesn't do that, any member could call the offensive member to order.

With two important caveats, this is in order. This situation is explicitly mentioned in RONR (12th ed.): I have bolded one of the important caveats. To be elected, each candidate must receive a majority of the votes cast. If fewer than 7 receive a majority, then the ones who have are declared elected (filling the two-year term positions first) and you conduct another round of balloting for the remaining positions. The second is that this assumes that the positions are otherwise identical except for the term. I mention this because you call them "Class A" and "Class B." If Class A and Class B have any differences other than the term (eg: in authority, voting weight, etc) then the two classes should be voted on by separate ballots or two separate sections of the same ballot paper.

I inferred from the line that says things have taken place ("everything that has taken place at those unofficial meetings") and the fact that only actions need ratification. But I can't and didn't say as a fact that they did occur.

It sounds like the members have taken actions in the name of this so-called committee and perhaps even made decisions, taken actions, or made commitments in the name of the larger organization. If they have, then they are individually responsible for any of those things. The organization may ratify these actions. However, this group should be properly formed and populated as a committee before it does anything else. The organization is under no obligation to place these individuals on the committee.

I assume that this is a meeting of the membership (aka "general meeting") rather than a meeting of the board. The meeting can have a motion to ratify the decision of the board. It's not clear where the recommendation that you mention comes from - perhaps the board is recommending that their action be ratified. The second part of your question ("approve a recommendation that had been voted against at a prior meeting") sounds like a simple renewal of the motion. In most organizations, a motion that was defeated can be made at a future meeting. Each meeting is a separate session and members have the right to make the same motion at another session if it was defeated previously. I hope that these are two separate examples that you gave us, as I'm not certain how they can both be one agenda item.

Are you certain that your definitions and conclusions match?

Also check relevant state law. I know that some states define a municipal council's session as a year long.

Do your bylaws give one trustee the authority to call a board meeting?

If you need to make up categories to record ("absent" and "abstain" aren't required) why not just create a new one called "Recused"?

Not under RONR (see quoted paragraph below, with emphasis added) - note also that the situation you describe probably doesn't fall under RONR's "direct personal or pecuniary interest." However, there may be legislated constraints on a member of the board. Check the laws of your jurisdiction. They, as well, may not apply to the situation described - check with a lawyer experienced in such law.

Some corporate statutes give a director the right to have their dissent recorded. If that doesn't apply to your organization, then see Mr. Elsman's response above.

Most bylaws do not provide guidance for this situation but many corporate statutes do. If your organization is incorporated, look to the relevant law for your jurisdiction.

It depends on the exact wording in your bylaws regarding the position. It is true that, once the president's resignation is accepted, that person is now the immediate past-president (IPP). In some organizations that would be enough to "push out" the previous IPP from the designated seat on the executive board. Other organizations have other constraints, such as requiring the president to serve their full term before being eligible to occupy the Past-President seat. If you share the relevant portions of your bylaws, you may get a more specific response.

Special rules of order supercede RONR, so this could be adopted as a special rule using the standard vote threshold that applies.

Unless I am misunderstanding something, I don't see how "this motion shall require a vote of ___ for adoption" could properly be divided from the other part of the main motion it is attached to. It cannot stand alone.