Atul Kapur

If they are members of the board, yes. What makes you raise this question? Do the non-profit's bylaws say otherwise or are they unclear whether these officers are members of the board?

It would be more definitive to amend the underlying rule to eliminate the ability to interpret it the non-favoured way. Because the overturning of a precedent creates a new precedent that could itself be overturned.

I wish you had resisted the urge to add that.

Easiest is for the candidate to speak only about oneself, "I have never been convicted of theft, which is proof of my good judgement." [or proof of how good I am at it]

I don't see that a policy can prevent any such thing. A special rule could prevent some aspects of this (for example, by saying that a member cannot make or vote on a motion that results in a personal gain), but the policy would be limited to saying what the penalty is for violating it.

The presiding officer does not have the authority, on their own, to remove a member from a meeting. "Although the chair has no authority to impose a penalty or to order the offending member removed from the hall, the assembly has that power." RONR (12th ed.) 61:13 This is in the section "Breaches of Order by Members in a Meeting" beginning at 61:10

You tell us that the executive board is authorised to do this (create a dues assessment). The executive board takes any action that it is authorised to do by way of adopting a motion to take the action. Unless your rules require more than that, it is as simple as that.

Where is the motion that eliminates the past-president position from the executive committee? This motion doesn't mention that at all.

I tend to agree with @J. J., but it is not clear from the OP what was the actual wording of the motion to make this change. It appears that the OP is a summary of the situation, rather than the specific motion.

Yes. And if there is a line-up at the microphone, or there is a speakers list, she has to wait until her turn. No. This is disruptive (and rude). A member who does this should be corrected by the chair. RONR (12th ed.) 16:5 "The subsidiary motion for the Previous Question: 3. Is out of order when another has the floor." [i.e. you cannot interrupt someone to make the motion] 16:20 "Calls of “Question!” by members from their seats are not motions for the Previous Question and are disorderly if another member is speaking or seeking recognition." [emphasis added]

It is up to your organization to resolve this ambiguity in the bylaws: since the bylaws create a grievance procedure where one of the possible outcomes is the removal from office of an officer, does that preclude a direct motion to remove the officer without a grievance and outside of the discipline process? If, for the sake of argument, such a motion is not precluded, does it require just the vote required for Amend Somethng Previously Adopted or must it follow the same procedure as for a grievance?

You should review, as I said earlier, your bylaws and special orders. If they are not adequate or supportive of your situation, you should revise them. If you are currently doing it without rules and are following unwritten rules (which RONR calls "custom"), then you should draft rules and adopt them.

Was the agenda adopted by the meeting before it recessed? If the agenda was formally adopted, it requires a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted to change it.

You won't. You will need to look in the bylaws or special rules of order of the organization. If you have a specific question, please share the relevant portion of your documents.

Yes, but state law that applies overrides both. It is not at all clear that this is the intent of the law and I am not sure that the intent is at all relevant. And I strongly urge you to consult a lawyer experienced in the relevant law before deciding on a course to circumvent the law.

Although not in RONR, many organizations ask whether the nominee accepts their nomination at the time of nomination. The person may decline (often, "with thanks to my nominator"), indicating that they would decline the position if elected. Presumably this discourages members from voting for this person and prevents the need to conduct repeated elections -- due to winning candidates declining to accept the office -- and is felt to be more efficient.

You may want to provide more details about the circumstances that lead to this comment and your question. There's not enough here -- at least for me -- to provide an answer. For example, what is your role? Is your question about what the purpose is or whether you're bound by the principle?

You could explain to the person the damage and risk to the organization and request that they resign.

The wording of the OP makes me think that they are doing the voting outside of a meeting, either online or by mail. If so, and as RONR only allows for voting at meetings, then @Deb Parm will need to consult the organization's own rules. And I agree with others that the defeat of a bylaws amendment is not, itself, a problem.

I'm afraid I must disagree with my friend. There is no "previous," "current," or "future" board. There us just the board, even if its membership changes from time to time. A motion adopted by the board remains in effect until it is executed, expires, or is rescinded. For example, take a board where all of its members serve one year terms and which is authorized to set the membership dues. It adopts a motion to set the membership dues at $100 a year. That motion is still in effect even two or three years later. The board does not need to renew that motion after each change of term. (It can, of course, amend the motion whenever it desires.)

Let's be clear. The nominating committee has no authority to If the nominating committee has the task of nominating one person for each vacant position, then it can take into consideration any criteria it feels are important in determining who is the best candidate. But there must be an opportunity for nominations from the floor, and only those requirements that are in the bylaws may be enforced to determine eligibility. If the committee's task is to determine eligibility for office and list all those who are eligible, it cannot add criteria that are not in the bylaws to exclude those who would otherwise be eligible.

Not under RONR

Correct. I was trying to anticipate a superficially plausible argument and shut it down.

No. Basically. That's what I was getting at in my previous response. The bulaws committee may make their report, including the recommendation to append the appendix, as if the motion to "deny" never happened. If someone objects to the bylaws committee's motion, on the grounds that it was dealt with and "denied" at the previous meeting, then the chair should rule against such an objection (which is actually a point of order) because the denial was not a proper motion and is effectively "null and void." Rather than stumbling, you (or the chair or the organization) may wish to obtain a formal parliamentary opinion from a professional parliamentarian regarding the events of the previous meeting with recommendations on how to proceed at the next meeting.

Do your (written) rules require two readings and forbid debate at first reading? If so, then it appears that the first reading is effectively what RONR calls a requirement for notice of motion. Debate or motions are not in order at that time, so I agree with @Josh Martin. Someone could argue that this motion was effectively equivalent to Discharging the subject from the Bylaws Committee and defeating the proposed appendix. However, this motion in this situation would require a 2/3 vote or the affirmative vote of a majority of the entire membership of the body that was meeting and we have no evidence that either threshold was achieved. So, at the next meeting, the bylaws committee could report and make a recommendation to add the appendix to the bylaws. If someone raises an objection that this was rejected at the previous meeting, that would be a point of order and the chair would rule, subject to appeal. I would advise the chair to rule the point "not well taken" (i.e. rule against the objection) and place the recommendation/motion on the floor for consideration.