Weldon Merritt

And one of the exceptions is when the bylaws say that rules in the bylaws are not suspendable!. I see no reason ton invent a new term to describe such rules.

I echo the sentiments of the previous posters. I met George at the 2005 NAP Convention in Seattle, a few months after I became a PRP. He apparently read my nametag, introduced himself, and congratulated me on my achievement. We later served together on the NAP Membership Extension and Retention Committee when we both were District Directors. Yes, he will be missed!

Agreeing with Dr. Kapur, I will add that if the correction is likely to be noncontroversial, you may be able to use general consent. ("Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the minutes of the [date] meeting be corrected by [state the proposed correction].") But if anyone objects, then you will have to use the full process as described by Dr. Kapur.

I don't see any way you could include the IPP position on the board without risking the negative consequences that most of us here routinely warn against. I have seen organization's that include the position and have not yet experienced any of the potential negative consequences. But the fact that they have not does not mean that they will not. Just in case you have not seen a full list of the potential problems, following is a list compiled by the late Dr. John Stackpole, who was a frequent contributor to this forum: If those arguments don't convince the others, then good luck. Just hope none of those eventualities occur.

Yes, of course. Sometimes we overlook the simplest answer. But technically, isn't that still adoption, by unanimous consent, of the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted?

OK, OK; I get it. I think you've milked that one for all it's worth. Darn spell check!

The minutes should be as accurate as possible, and if I were the person whose name was misspelled, I wood would want it corrected. But how to do it depends on where you are in the process. Three scenarios: 1. If the draft minutes have not yet been presented for approval, and you are the secretary simply make the correction before presenting them. 2. If it's the next meeting and approval of the minutes is at hand, you (or any member) may propose the correction, which I assume would be non-controversial. 3. If the minutes have already been approved, they still can be corrected by means of a Motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted. That's a bit more complicated, and I don't want to go into the details unless that's you situation. If it is, let us know and we can provide more guidance.

Agreeing with Mr. Mervosh, I will add that most likely, there should have been no nominations for president in teh first place. Rather, the vice president became president immediately, and teh nomination should have been t fill the vacated office of VP. The only exceptions to that procedure are: (1) if your bylaws specifically say that a vacancy in the office of president is filled by elections or some process other than automatic succession by the VP; or (2) at the time of the vacancy, you had no vice president.

Actually, there is another way if the candidates agree. The tie could[d be broken by an agreed upon random method (e.g., coin flip or card draw.) But again, the candidates would have to agree.

And the reason for that is that special meetings cannot be called at all unless your bylaws authorize them. And if they are authorized, the bylaws will need to specify who may call them and with how many days' notice. (Three is one exception where a special meeting may be called even if the bylaws are silent. But that involves disciplinary proceedings, so is unlikely to be applicable to your situation.)

A motion is effective the moment it is adopted, unless the motion itself or some applicable procedural rue says otherwise. Approval or non-approval of the minuities has no bearing on the validity or effecti9e date of the motion.

Indeed! And that's one of the arguments I made that (I think) helped persuade them to ditch the rule.

I was once a member of an organization whose bylaws required the NC to nominate two candidates for each office. A very bad idea IMO, and one that I eventually was able to convince them to eliminate. There was once member in particular who saw the proposed change as an attempt to "limit their choices." Fortunately, most of the group did not buy her argument.

If there indeed was unanimous consent (the chair asked if there was any objection and no one voiced and objection), the action was just as binding as if it had received an actual vote. And its inclusion in the minutes was proper. As they should have been. But that has no bearing either way on the validity of the action. The action was valid the moment the chair asked for and received unanimous consent, regardless of whether the minutes included it. And if it did not receive unanimous consent, the fact that it was (improperly) included in the minutes does not validate it.

Not necessarily. It looks to me more like a misuse of "table" when they really meant "postpone." Especially when they included a specified time (even though the time was far beyond the period for which a motion could be legitimately postponed).