Atul Kapur

I believe it's important to emphasize to the OP that the motion is not automatically rescinded or rendered null and void because it is now discovered (or believed) that "invalid information was given to obtain the positive vote." The motion adopted remains in force and effect until a motion to rescind it is adopted.

Or "of those present"

It's a quasi-solution, but I'm still not convinced it's even a quasi-problem, let alone a real one. I assume that your current situation has been going on for years and was accepted until this one person raised this one objection based on a complete misunderstanding of RONR. There are ways to increase turnout, including allowing absentee voting, but I recommend that, rather than jumping on a particular "fix", that you take the time to look at the various options and come to an answer that best serves the various and unique needs and desires of your organization and your members.

No. This "exception" is, in fact, a motion to suspend the rules - in this case a rule that cannot be suspended (no absentee voting) because that would violate a fundamental principle of parliamentary law. The bylaws themselves can violate a fundamental principle, but you would need to amend the bylaws to do so, rather than try to suspend them.

What do your bylaws state is the quorum for your meetings?

Yes, it would appear to be a proper main motion. As with any other main motion, "all subsidiary motions can be applied to it" (10:8(2)), which includes the motion to postpone.

Because there is a difference between giving notice and sending that notice out to the general membership. You, as an individual member, have the right to give notice under 57:14, which you do verbally at the meeting. It is up to the organisation to send that notice to all the members, not you. Nothing in 57:14 gives you the right to commandeer the resources of the organization.

Your bylaws specifically state (in 7.3) that bylaws amendments may be considered at a regular monthly meeting if notice is given as specified. So I see nothing that supports the pastors' position. No, not at all. You are not a member of the committee so you don't even have the right to attend the committee meeting and, if you do attend the meeting you have no right to participate in the meeting at all, much less have the right to speak first. You could verbally give notice of your motion and request that the clerk be directed to send written notice as required by Bylaws Article 9.1. If (when) that request is rejected, then you can raise a point of order. If the point is found to be "not well taken," then appeal. Be prepared before the meeting to have someone second your appeal. Also note that you can, as the deacons appear to have done, discuss this with other members before the meeting to recruit allies to your position. I am not inclined to follow Mr. Novosielski's specific proposal because, no matter what you have done and tried to have sent out, notice has not been sent as required by Article 9.1 so it would not be appropriate to consider the bylaws amendment at that meeting. I do, however, agree with his strategy which is similar to what I said in the previous paragraph

How would the person who made that suggestion suggest that a voice vote or rising vote could be "audited"? Several corporate statutes I am familiar with state that a record in the minutes is evidence of the decision (but is not irrefutable). Ask the person why the presiding officer's judgement on "which side has it" on a voice vote is different from that person's judgement on whether there is an objection.

It sounds like you were trying to provide notice according to the provisions of 10:51 The alternative is to give the notice orally at one meeting and the item is considered at the next meeting. See 10:47 - 10:49. There apparently was such a policy, a long time ago on a server far,far away. The current rule is that the excerpts must be exact quotes of the bylaws.

That means the way that you are planning on doing it, with all five positions being voted on at the same time, with seven candidates and voters allowed to select up to five. The alternative is to do it the way that you say it's been done in the past: one ballot (or section of the ballot or election) for the three three-year positions; one for the one two-year position; and one for the one-year position. By the way, if you do it that way (the way that you say it has been done in the past), RONR would allow one individual to run in all three of those elections and, if one person won more than one of them, the person chooses which one they want and you conduct another ballot for the declined position. If done properly according to the rules, your "old guard wouldn't have the chance to manipulate the elections in the way that you described.

Please note that, unless your bylaws dictate otherwise, it's not just the top five who are elected. RONR requires that each of them must receive a majority vote.

46:34 If the multiple positions have varying terms (as may happen when terms are staggered or there is an election to fill the remainder of an unexpired term) and the differing term lengths have not been assigned different sections of the ballot, the longer terms are allocated among those receiving a majority vote in the order in which they obtain greater numbers of votes. If there is a tie, the tied candidates may agree which of them will take a longer term; if they do not agree, the question is put to a vote on the next ballot.

I didn't include this in my response because it is not clear from the OP whether the board actually has the power to fill vacancies, which is assumed in the responses above

I agree with Mr. Martin that Bylaws Article X as quoted does not limit you to the April meeting. So the question now is whether the "Agenda of monthly meetings" is part of the bylaws or not. I am inclined to say it is not, but that is a decision for the organization to make. It may help to see if there was ever a motion to incorporate that into the bylaws or if it was just placed there for convenience. I have some qualms about because the bylaws are clear that a motion must be made at the following meeting after it is made. I know Mr. Martin wasn't equating starting work and making a motion to amend, but the bylaws are broader and limit any motion pertaining to a bylaws change so is more wide-ranging.

Under RONR, when the office of president is vacant, the vice president automatically ascends to the presidency. So your actually vacancy was in the position of vice president. How you correct this situation is something that I will leave to others to advise you - other than to say that it sounds like you are in a complicated situation and the organization will likely benefit from the services of a parliamentarian to advise you specifically. But that does not mean that the former president is correct in saying that the meetings are invalid (I'm not commenting on "illegal" as this is not a legal forum) or that the business done was invalid and should be disregarded. If there were any decisions that were decided by one vote, it is possible that those may be challenged, but not other decisions nor the fact that the meetings, themselves, occurred.

It may not be specific, but please reproduce the exact text of the bylaws article that refers to their amendment (probably located near the end of the document).

Well, as we are reminded by the OP, the entire concept of revision appears to also be specific to bylaws alone. That is the interesting question raised by the OP. I haven't had a chance to review the matter thoroughly, but I'm suggesting that, if revision can be considered to apply to something other than bylaws, then all provisions related to revision should apply, not just the relaxation of scope of notice. And this concept of pre-authorization appears to me to be linked directly to revision, rather than to bylaws amendments. The authors have been clear in their commentary that they believe that this is just making explicit what was always the case.

Before considering the question of whether this revision is free of limitations related to scope of notice (i.e. if is it analogous to a bylaws revision), please let us know whether the infraction committee was "properly authorized to draft it [the revision] either by the membership or by an executive board that has the power to refer such matters to a committee" which is a prerequisite in 57:5 for a revision.

Nothing in RONR, either.

In other words, you recommend that @puzzling "rexcond the mess" he wrote?

The company could refuse to pay. The company could, if it is within the rules, adopt a motion to restrict this officer's ability to spend company funds - and inform its bank. There are many options, depending on your rules. But the first step appears to be that the company has to realize that it has power, and not tolerate being bullied as described:

I'm assuming you meant to refer to 45:36, or that you are referencing the Superior Deluxe edition. I am more familiar with bylaws that require a declaration of election by acclamation if there are no more candidates than available positions ("...the chair shall..." rather than "...the chair may..."). But in case where such a declaration is allowed but not obligatory, are you saying that if one position is contested then all the positions must be processed by a ballot vote? For example, elections are being held for four officer positions (president, vice president, secretary, and treaasurer) and the practice is to complete all nominations before voting on any position then conducting a single ballot (if required) as per 46:31(1). The nominations committee reports one nominee for each position. A second individual is nominated from the floor for treasurer. There is, It sounds like you are saying that, in this situation, all four positions must be included on the ballot. That is, the chair could not declare the nominees for president, vice president, and secretary elected by acclamation and conduct a ballot vote solely for the treasurer. Am I understanding you correctly?

I was responding to the OP, who told us that they have not been doing it on sequence.

So, exactly what I said?