Atul Kapur

Even if the rule didn't provide for its own suspension by a majority vote, it seemed to me that the exact same result could be reached by, in the special meeting, making a motion to go out of executive session as a question of privilege; such a motion would still only require a majority vote. (This motion would be debatable, as opposed to suspend the rules, so there is one difference, but the outcome is the same.) Or are you reading @Josh Martin's special rule to say something else?

Of course, such suspension would have to be moved and voted on in the executive session meeting that was called, would it not? Which would make it, effectively, the same as 9:24's motion to go out of executive session, correct? Or did I miss the joke?

Under RONR, only members of the body that is meeting have rights to participate in the meeting, including asking questions. Are you asking about provisions for members or, as inferred from your term "public hearing," non-members?

You keep voting until there is a winner. You could re-open nominations. You could take disciplinary action against those who you feel acted improperly - if their voting rights are suspended or they are removed, then you may not have a tie on the next round of voting.

Agreeing with others that this is a question of interpretation by the assembly, my interpretation is that they are members with all rights except the right to vote. This is based on Principle of Interpretation #6: "A ... limitation ... permits things of the same class that are not mentioned in the ... limitation and that are not evidently improper." RONR (12th ed.) 56:58(6). In this case, the limitation is that these members do not have the right to vote. Other rights "of the same class" such as the right to attend meetings (1:4 as quoted by @Josh Martin above) are permitted under Principle of Interpretation #6.

If you put something to a vote (in this case, to ratify), you always run the risk that the vote will be negative. So, instead of protecting yourselves, you are creating a risk. Unlikely but possible, so why create the risk if it's unnecessary?

This is an assumption. You might want to confirm that it is accurate with a lawyer experienced with that particular law.

Your quote from the bylaws may mean that there is no need for a formal nomination, but that would be an interpretation of the bylaws by the assembly itself. Personally, I wouldn't interpret it to say that. Rather, I believe that it just means that the current office-holder is eligible to be re-elected (that is, there is no term limit). Under RONR, even if the person is eligible to be re-elected to the office, they still need to be nominated, others may be nominated, and an election is held. But I am not a member of your organization and have not read the entirety of your bylaws. BTW, Your quote mentions "additional 1 year terms."Are all your terms one-year in length? In other words, if a person is elected to the office for the first time, how long is that term.

To spell out the conclusion in excruciating detail, if there is no applicable law or rule, the default would be that the minutes are not posted. You say that the president does not have the authority but would you agree that the Secretary does not have the authority to post their draft minutes (i.e. the unapproved ones) or the approved ones without a board decision?

This is a question for your organization to answer. Some questions that may help you arrive at a satisfactory answer include: What would be the purpose of keeping such records / Why would the organization or individuals want to refer to them in the future? What was done in the past? What rules or guidance are there for such records in the possession of other officers and leaders? Could they serve as precedent or analogy for your position? Is there a central repository? Etc

This is a question about interpreting what your bylaws say, not about RONR.

It depends on what your rules about electing by email voting say. Generally, the rule in RONR would ignore the 4 abstentions so 21:20 is a majority vote, so would be enough to elect.

A revision is the complete opposite of Theseus. With a revision, you are building an entirely new ship while the original is still out there sailing the seas. You may design the new ship to almost the exact same specifications as the current one, but you cannot change one rivet or plank on the current one. The other difference is that, while someone could present a design for the new one that looks exactly like the current one, with a revision you are allowed to change the proposed design from a duplicate of Theseus' ship to a steam-powered paddlewheel or even a nuclear-powered submarine. It's that lack of limitation that is the fundamental difference with a revision, no matter what the end-product looks like.

First, I am almost certain that there is a contract with the (ex-)Pastor, so there would be legal issues involved. However, as far as parliamentary procedure applies, I note that the bylaws as quoted say This suggests to me that the Pastor may unilaterally terminate the relationship (as may the Church). So whatever RONR says on accepting resignations is immaterial, as the bylaws supercede anything in RONR.

I guess @Dan Honemann is an originalist?

I read it to say that the person who was elected president, but whose term has not yet begun, was the person who resigned between the time of election and the beginning of their term. In other words, I read the OP's third paragraph as starting: "A few weeks after the election, but before the newly elected officers assume office, the [person who won the election as new president] resigned [before assuming the office of president]." My initial thought is: I don't believe this is an incomplete election. The election became final (= complete) when the person who was elected president did not decline. Therefore I believe Mr. Honemann's answer still applies. The person who was elected vice-president will ascend to president when the terms turn over and you will have a vacancy in the office of vice-president.

When you're asking it, please specify whether they are members of the body that is meeting.

The wording leaves room for interpretation but I read it to say that undertakings or actions require 9 affirmative votes (majority of the current membership of 16).

This forum is limited to opinions about RONR. 😉

Weldon, I believe that this decision can be rescinded, as it does not apply to a member or is the expulsion from office or membership

A hypothetical, apparently. From the OP:

Agreeing with @Joshua Katz, I will just add that the general rule for any decision of a body is that it requires a majority of the votes cast by people eligible to vote and expressing a preference, more familiarly: a majority vote.

Quick and dirty answer: whatever was laid on the table, if ignored, will die of neglect at the adjournment of the next meeting.

But I thought that you had said, correctly

Thank you! I was beginning to worry that those words only appeared in my copies.