George Mervosh

Unless this is a committee, yes.

What in the world is modified Robert's Rules?

I'm not at all comfortable with the idea that the technique of interpretation can be used to prohibit write-ins because my understanding is, the only way to prohibit write-in votes is for the bylaws to explicitly say so. I don't know if my understanding of this is correct though.

https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/19676-incomplete-elections-vs-vacancies/?tab=comments#comment-104100 But I'm not sure it's helpful since this assembly hasn't held the election yet. I'd suggest they make sure the ballot has spaces for write-ins (as it always should in an election when voting by ballot) and elect the required number of eligible members. What happens at this election meeting will dictate what, if anything, happens next.

See Mr. Gerber's post here, especially the second and third bullet points. https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/25416-important-read-this-first-faq-and-information-for-new-members-and-guests/

Yes/No ballots are not proper at all. Don't use them. "In elections, "for" and "against" spaces or boxes should not be used. They are applicable only with respect to votes on motions. In an election, a voter can vote against one candidate only by voting for another who has been nominated or by writing in the name of another candidate. " RONR (11th ed.), p. 414 Why is a 2/3 vote required, just out of curiosity?

How was the start time established?

I'm not sure how much of a workaround it is, since the board cannot empower the committee to act in its name, therefore the matter will be coming back up in a board meeting if final action is necessary and the member in question cannot be excluded from a meeting of the board.

Perhaps what they wanted to add had some additional previous notice requirement that would have been violated?

You are correct that a point of order and whatever follows can only be done at a regular or properly called meeting with a quorum present.

A rule regarding the term of office for officers and board members may not be suspended unless your group's bylaws specifically allow it. " Rules contained in the bylaws (or constitution) cannot be suspended—no matter how large the vote in favor of doing so or how inconvenient the rule in question may be—unless the particular rule specifically provides for its own suspension, or unless the rule properly is in the nature of a rule of order as described on page 17, lines 22–25" RONR (11th ed.), p. 263

This may be a small board where discussion often times occurs without a motion or precedes a motion, but even if it is a regular assembly that has gone off the rails, as Mr. Katz suggests, if the motion does not require previous notice, how can the answer be, no?

Sorry, J.J., you lost me on this one.

And to think I've read 716 numbered pages plus the introductory pages since the 11th Edition came out when I really only needed to read 600?

After the nominating committee reports the floor must be open to further nominations. If there are none: "If only one person is nominated and the bylaws do not require that a ballot vote be taken, the chair, after ensuring that, in fact, no members present wish to make further nominations, simply declares that the nominee is elected, thus effecting the election by unanimous consent or "acclamation."" RONR (11th ed.), p. 443

You may want to look at http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#9 which should indicate to you the answer to your first question is, no, the answer to your second question is, yes, and indicates your statement on voting rights is simply not correct.

"If the unit for which the bylaws are to be drawn up is subject to a parent organization or superior body, such as a state or a national society (or both), or a federation, the bylaws governing at these higher levels should be studied for provisions which are binding upon subordinate units in a way that must be taken into account. The bylaws of a subordinate unit need to conform to those of a superior body only on clearly requisite points." RONR (11th ed.), p. 567 Your group will have to determine if it's a clearly requisite point or not. The state association may view it differently. We can't resolve any dispute about it here.

The ISO seems like they've been spending too much time at 2FP meetings.

And make sure nominations are taken from the floor because once the members understand the situation a nominee may be found. Also, unless the bylaws prohibit it, write in votes must be permitted. Your problem might solve itself.

No.

"*In the case of any resolution, motion, or paper placed before the assembly that has not been read even once, the chair normally should not put it to a vote or seek its approval or adoption without reading it (or having it read by the secretary) unless permission is first obtained by unanimous consent. In a case where the full text has been distributed to the members in advance and it is customary for the reading to be omitted, the chair may initially presume that there is no objection to omitting the reading (but any member still has the right to demand that it be read). Such a case typically involves adoption of an agenda; approval of the minutes; or, in a convention, the rules proposed by the Committee on Standing Rules or the program proposed by the Program Committee. (See also p. 38, l. 27 to p. 39, l. 6." RONR (11th ed.), p. 46fn

The current members of the board could simply review the report themselves or decide in a meeting to lift the secrecy of the matter if they want and release it to others. The document belongs to the board itself, not its former members, so yes they should have it.

There you go, R. Harrison. Mr. Gerber's clarifications should prove quite helpful moving forward.

I think so. RONR notes that the objection is similar to a point of order in some respects. I think timing is one of them. "For example, if the chair is stating the question on a motion that has not been seconded, or on a motion that is out of order in the existing parliamentary situation, the time to raise these points of order is when the chair states the motion." RONR (11th ed), p. 250