jstackpo

Members
  • Content count

    6,981
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About jstackpo

Profile Information

  • Location
    : Fort Washington, Maryland
  1. Well, second thoughts are commonly found in second paragraphs. (Common, it's Sunday, cut me some slack.)
  2. IPP is a Bad Idea: And here's some reasons why the position is a bad idea: In my personal view, setting up an "official" Immediate Past President (IPP) position is not a particularly good idea. The most telling argument is the real possibility of a close and bitter race for the presidency, with the current president running (for a second term) against an "outsider". And the outsider - the "reform candidate", perhaps - wins but is still stuck with the thorn of the IPP on the Board in a position to snipe at the new president. And perhaps attempt to undermine the new president's plans. Not to mention vote against them. If the erstwhile president is a "good guy" the new president can (usually, depending on the bylaws) appoint him to a pre-existing committee - or even have him chair one, which might put him on the Board - as the new president sees fit. That way the IPP's experience and value can be put to good use, when needed, without the danger of setting up an adversarial situation which would require a bylaw amendment to get out of. Here's some more reasons 1) The President resigns and wants nothing to do with the organization. 2) The President simply doesn't run for election again because he's had enough, and never shows up at a board meeting. 3) The President is booted out of office for being incompetent, or for something more nefarious. 4) The President dies. 5) The President resigns and moves (wants to help but isn't around). 6) Even worse is the bylaw assignment of the IPP to chair a committee - such as nominating. Then he dies/quits/leaves town, &c. You are then stuck with an unfillable (by definition) vacancy. Note that except for item 4, the IPP may well be part of the quorum requirement for meetings, even though he never shows up. Our suggestion is to amend your bylaws to eliminate the position.
  3. Under RONR's rules (not Congress's, whatever they are), you are not obliged to answer any questions at all in debate. "Hearings" might be different, of course.
  4. And since, from what you say, the resignation has not been accepted by the board, the member is free to withdraw his resignation, as he apparently has done. So he/she remains board member. Nothing further need be done.
  5. You make an entirely sensible argument. Your next step is to draw up your rule, as a "Standing Rule" (p. 18), and propose it for adoption by your association. It might also be defined as a "Special Rule of Order" (a little more difficult to adopt or amend later on - see p 15ff.). Whether such ballot rules are indeed "Special" or "Standing" does not appear to be specified in the book.
  6. You are correct -- a quorum is a required number of people physically present.
  7. Yup.
  8. Depends upon which rules were not followed. Care to give details?
  9. Unfortunately, there is also the third possibility that neither A nor B is favored by a majority of the voters. Try this way: "I move to accept A" Then "I move to amend the main motion by striking out A and inserting B". Vote on whether to amend the main motion. Then vote on the main motion as amended. The amendment makes the A vs. B choice straight forward. The vote on the resulting main motion decides whether the A vs. B winner is acceptable to a majority. See RONR pp. 130 ff. for a host of other details, sample motions and conditions. A main motion to select A or B is usually applied to elections, where "none of the above" (defeating both) is not an option.
  10. The general RONR rule is that the folks who show up and vote at a properly announced meeting (as long a a quorum shows up - 25 in your case) get to make the decisions, by majority vote -- only those who vote (yes or no) are counted to figure out a majority - more than half - decision. Abstentions don't and are not counted. So I think the answer to your question in the last paragraph is "Yes", the 70 (or 26) who show up get to select the officers.
  11. Nothing in RONR prevents a resigned (past) officer from running again -- even for the same office. If you think it unreasonable, vote for someone else.
  12. Or, for that matter, amend bylaws to eliminate the requirement that a particular person has to show up. Requiring that has given that person a veto power over the committee.
  13. Or amend the bylaws to say that the Pastor may (has the right to) attend meetings but does not have to show up as a requirement for a meeting to be valid. Or elect a second person to be the Execurtive Board Chairman.
  14. But bylaws are not an advice column; a fair part of RONR quite properly is. Stick to "shall" in the bylaws.