Atul Kapur

While I agree with you, Josh -- as our replies to this post have said the same things -- it would probably be less confusing to say "newly elected" rather than installed, since these two events appear to be occurring at different times and that is the source of the OP's question.

What do you bylaws say about when the terms change over? According to RONR, the installation ceremony is irrelevant; the election is effective as soon as it is final; so the new president should take over the chair as soon as they are declared elected. Some organizations say otherwise in their bylaws -- eg: the term ends with the adjournment of the annual meeting (in which case the outgoing president stays in the chair for both days) or the term ends at the installation ceremony (in which case the new president calls the meeting to order on the second day and presides over the entire day). Whatever your bylaws say overrides what is in RONR if there is a confict.

When you say "elected voting members" do you mean the elected board (or small leadership group by whatever equivalent name) of the union? Do you mean the elected delegates to a convention? I am asking because you seem to be using the term "elected voting members" to differentiate from all the members of the union, which sounds unusual for a union.

It can work any way you decide - you just have to be clear that the motion(s) say exactly what you intend to happen. Assuming that this is a one-time assessment, you could, for example, rescind the motion that created the assessment; this would eliminate the debt owed by the 1/4 (you could specify that if desired) but have no effect on the payments received from the 3/4 (the motion to rescind has no retroactive effect), so you would likely want to combine the motion to rescind with a motion to refund the payments made by those people.

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.