J. J.

Members
  • Content count

    2,540
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About J. J.

  • Rank
    "Friday night, and the strip is hot... "
  • Birthday 01/01/1963

Profile Information

  • Location
    Philadelphia
  • Interests
    Procedure, History, Politics, Genealogy, a Missing Person Case in Central Pennsylvania, and, of course, Donna Summer.

Recent Profile Visitors

892 profile views
  1. I'm guessing that do not vote at a meeting. Is that correct.
  2. And, it could create an absentee right that could not be suspended. If there was a properly adopted rule preventing nominations from the floor, this could be a problem.
  3. I do believe that rule could be not suspended, and the "election" of someone by write-in votes would be null and void, but I might not consider saying that the person is "ineligible" to be elected. Looking at Mr. Gerber's response, he might not be saying that either. It might be more of a semantic argument. In addition, there might be several different grounds for why write-ins could not be credited. On the second point, yes, this would create a "deadly" combination if there was a rule against nominations from the floor.
  4. In this case, it would mean that the meeting was properly called. If a group of members got together and said, without authority, "We a having this meeting," it would not be a valid meeting. If the bylaws required 30 days notice for a meeting, and only 10 days notice was given, that would not be a valid meeting.
  5. It would depend on how the rule/bylaw was written. I would treat a rule, "That write-in votes shall not be credited," differently than "Only persons nominated shall be eligible to hold the office of ____."
  6. An officer, while speaking, may decline to yield for a question (p. 295, ll. 9-14). Even if the speaker consents to the interruption, "comments that are not questions should be ruled out of order.
  7. I was merely noting that the minutes could be defamatory because a motion this is defamatory may be included in them.
  8. The society could adopt a resolution that was defamatory,and that would be recorded in the minutes.
  9. Well, if everything is in executive session, nobody outside of the society will know. Further, the society cannot establish legal guilt, or innocence. If the member is kicked out, the society can't stop him from talking.
  10. My experience, which has been vicarious, is just the opposite. In cases where there have been public statements, I have also seen suits filed. An assembly cannot determine criminal guilt and may discipline for matters that are not criminal. The rule protects the member by not publicly accusing him of some perceived wrongdoing. The assembly is protected by not engaging in actions that could constitute libel.
  11. You are the president now. How is the vacancy in the position of vice president filled? It could be possible to for you to resign as president, after the new vice president has been seated. That person will then become president. Perhaps you could then fill the vacancy created in the office of vice president.
  12. Disclosing of what information?
  13. Yes, and the Q & A deals with the specific acts of announcing the vote totals, and the recording of those totals in the minutes. It says nothing about removing the ability to count the vote. The Q & A said, " This committee recognizes that there are certain rights associated with voting by a secret, as opposed to a signed, ballot. No motion can be made that force the disclosure of how any member voted (p. 413, ll. 1-4)." I think that answers Dan's first question. To be clear, and to avoid a straw-man argument, the Q & A deal only with the reading of the vote totals by the tellers, the repeating of those vote totals by the chair, and the recording of those vote totals in the minutes. It is implied that was a count.
  14. I'll disagree only slightly and say that it is up to the society to make the determination.
  15. As I said, I do not disagree. That does not change the fact that there is nothing that says proxy voting is prohibited in the bylaws. That is not the same as saying proxy voting is permitted.