Atul Kapur

Yes, but even in that situation, at the subsequent general meeting where the committee's recommendation is proposed any member of the committee is free to change their mind and speak / vote against the motion.

"If neither the president nor any vice-president is present, the secretary—or in the secretary’s absence some other member—calls the meeting to order, and the assembly immediately elects a chairman pro tem to preside during that session." RONR (12th ed.) 47:11(3) A past-president is a reasonable person to elect to preside over that meeting, but that is not automatic under RONR. If the secretary or past president assume that the past president will preside, and no one objects, then they can proceed with that assumption. The way to object would be to nominate someone else to serve in that role.

It is not a rule in RONR. It is a custom or special rule with several types of organizations. If it is a special rule in your organization, someone should be able to show you where it is written down. If it's a custom (aka "culture"), some would say that it is worth the paper it is not written on.

Yes. In fact that is the procedure described in RONR (12th ed.) 51:11 Not if it were made by the committee person making the report. 51:11-12 Before (immediately when the motion is made after the report). 41:14 The events you described followed RONR, except that the committee person should have moved the motion (in which case would not require a second). After being moved, the chair should state the motion, similar to any other motion that is in order.

In another thread, on setting a 75% voting threshold for a committee to adopt a motion/recommendation, @Daniel H. Honemann stated: I, of course, agree with Mr. Honemann. It leads to a related question. What vote would be required for the assembly to direct the executive board to follow a similar rule? Or, to generalize, what vote is required for the assembly to set a special rule for the board that does not apply to the assembly itself (for example, requiring the board to include the names of seconders in its minutes or to lower the threshold to require a ballot vote, without changing the rule for membership meetings)?

Your response appears correct based on RONR (12th ed.) 8:2(2), and the citations from Mr. Honemann, above. Your board member may have gotten this mistaken impression from several municipalities and higher level assemblies which say that a session lasts a full year. But, remember, that a session is not defined based on time.

In the absence of the secretary, the body must elect a secretary pro tem for that meeting. RONR (12th ed.) 47:34 The parliamentarian could take on this role.

I would go further. The unsuccessful candidates from the past election are not automatically candidates in this election. They, and any new candidates, should be nominated anew.

No, that is not how it works under RONR. The resignation needs to be accepted and that would create a vacancy. RONR says that the body that originally elected the person fills the vacancy. Your bylaws may have different rules about vacancy-filling.

First, I agree with Mr. Mervosh. Nothing in RONR requires this. In fact, RONR says that a member cannot be required to abstain. Apparently the majority did not want to wait, otherwise they would have voted against the motion or continued debate on the motion.

Is the "next meeting" also a meeting of the membership? If so, and if it's within a "quarterly time interval" of the annual meeting, then the next meeting can approve the annual meeting minutes. If the members only meet once a year and the "next meeting" is of the executive board, then you should adopt a motion at the annual meeting creating a committee to approve the minutes or delegating that authority to the executive board. I would suggest that you start with Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised - In Brief. That is a better introduction.

I agree completely. I almost added that it seems that the simplest thing to do now is to thank that person for their service and move on, while following the bylaws more closely from now on.

If I understand correctly (and I am not at all sure I do, because your structure seems to allow the board to appoint its own membership), this person has served a total of 12 years. If you truly have a term limit of 9 years in your bylaws (3 terms of 3 years each), that provision cannot be suspended.

I suppose it is possible, but all the comments suggest otherwise. For example, if the caucus meetings are the same as membership meetings, why would they need to do an election by US mail (as per the OP) when it would be easier to conduct it at a caucus meeting?

I don't think I've seen enough to answer this. My initial response is that you should conduct a belated election (you can't "rerun" them since you never ran them the first time).

I disagree. This is different from being elected to both positions. See RONR (12th ed.) 56:32: Also see RONR (12th ed.) 47:28 and 29. They indicate that the vice-president automatically becomes president in the event of the president's resignation, death, or removal. 47:29 makes clear that the vice-president's "automatic promotion to a higher office" creates a vacancy in the office of vice-president (in the office of first vice-president, in the case of multiple vice-presidents).

I couldn't find the thread where I posed this question earlier. As I recall, @Daniel H. Honemann's answer was basically that this was that way because HMR wrote it that way.

I disagree with this option. It takes the authority to elect away from the membership and gives it to the caucus meeting, which sounds like a dangerous usurption of authority. Nothing in what you have quoted suggests that there is a prohibition. If your bylaws are silent regarding write-in's then RONR prevails and it says that write-in's are allowed. Question: If "The one contested election has 6 nominations for 4 seats," then why wasn't an election held?

Yes Good up to now, but... This is incorrect. RONR is not like Miss America, the first runner-up does not automatically become the winner if the winner declines. The candidate who receives the second highest number of votes is never declared elected. You run another ballot for the positions that are still open. As RSW notes, the person who won the election could decide to stay on the ballot for the second office and could be elected to that second (and even the third) office.

"If the bylaws require the election of officers to be by ballot and there is only one nominee for an office, the ballot must nevertheless be taken for that office unless the bylaws provide for an exception in such a case. In the absence of the latter provision, members still have the right, on the ballot, to cast “write-in votes” for other eligible persons." RONR (12th ed.) 46:35

Maybe covid-years count double?

First, if there are only eight voting members then this is a small board and the rules that apply to a small board would apply. Under those rules, the chair can participate in debate and vote. Secondly, you tell us that So I am wondering why you want to change things. The rules should serve the organization's needs, rather than the organization adapting itself to serve a particular set of rules. (I can see a desire to protect from a chair who's "gone rogue" and acts dictatorially, but there are already procedures to deal with that). I will note that there is no need to break a tie as it is a conclusive vote. A motion is defeated on a tie. Finally, I will note that there is a potential for a conflict of interest whenever one person serves on two boards of directors of related organizations. I dont think that your proposed solution removes that potential; a neutral, outside presiding officer may be a better solution to that problem.

This is known as a "floor parliamentarian." You can get referrals for professional parliamentarians through the American Institute of Parliamentarians or the National Association of parliamentarians.

You must be new here. Welcome.

This was not a simple miscount of the votes. The board decided to contravene the bylaws by declaring someone elected with a plurality. That contravention of the bylaws constitutes a continuing breach, in my opinion. See 23:6(1) in combination with 46:1, which speaks of an election as, in effect, an assumed main motion.