Clurichan

Reminds me of... Boy: Hey Billy! Hey Joey! Come on in. There's plenty of room. Sorry, not you, Homer. Homer: Why not!? [boy points to sign, "No Homers Club"] Homer: But you let in Homer Glumplich! Homer Glumplich: [pops head out window] Hyuck hyuck! Boy: It says no Homers. We're allowed to have one. Homer: Ohhhhhhhh! http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/NoHomers.net

Now certainly a vacancy in an unexpired term is very much distinct from an incomplete election, but... an incomplete election AND a vacancy in office may be coterminous? So if a vacancy due to an incomplete election drags on and on, why not fill it according to the rules for "vacancies in office" (assuming no qualifiers in the bylaws as to the why- and where-fore the vacancy occurred?)

Perhaps p471, line 20; and page 646, line 16?

Is this a "forever" situation, or just until the next regularly scheduled election (assuming there is one, and if there is, how far away is it?) Or until ...?

Something like, do want them to look like this: Section 2. DUES Dues shall be $25 $35 per year, due January 1. or just: Section 2. DUES Dues shall be $35 per year, due January 1. Is that your question, more or less?

(Absent any rules particular to your group and to the contrary) a member is a member-- When you're a Jet, You're a Jet all the way From your first cigarette To your last dyin' day. --with all the rights of any other member.

I have some guaranteed advice (free, with money-back guarantee): In your new bylaws, do include the RONR already-built-in prohibition against proxy and absentee voting; and don't include any phrasing along the lines of "decisions shall be made by majority vote", because this opens the door for anyone to claim that e.g., "a 2/3rds vote isn't needed", even though RONR is properly cited in the bylaws, and the "majority vote" phrasing is properly qualified. Opinions here and elsewhere will no doubt differ, but experientia docet, and sometimes no one else does it as well. [That is, the bylaws may clearly require a 2/3rd or higher vote on important issues, but will usually be silent on some or all of the protections built in to RONR, e.g., 2/3 to cut off debate, it is confusion over the latter (in-RONR but not in-bylaws) requirements I'm thinking of.]

My question to keefe would be, what happens in the case of a vacancy not created by resignation?

Guest Pete, a question if you don't mind: What reason is given for doing this, why is it supposed to be a good idea?

Le superflu, chose très nécessaire.

He was just grammar national socializing, don't sweat it. Unless your committee or parent body set up some requirements or duty of closed-mouthedness, there's absolutely nothing that I can think of that precludes you asking what is, in essence, the hypothetical, "Would you supply resource X, if the committee requests it?" The guy is trying to justify timidity, if you ask me, unless there's some deep or hidden cross-agenda going on...

Well, I agree it's absurd, but until you push them through the door over my objections, what offense have you committed against me? It's (unless there's some special rule...) a laughable and naked abuse of power, but staff have a right (ahem) to be proud of their hair-splitting phrasing, that's all I'm saying...

If I've read correctly, it's a 7 member board, President absent, leaves 6. It would take 4 votes (absent abstentions) to overturn the chair's ruling. What rule limits the President's right to, outside a meeting, ask whomsoever she pleases to chair the next meeting? The rules only limit what she can ask the assembly to up with put. (If you don't see the humor in this distinction, it's my fault.) The point is, I think staff's phrasing is significant, emphasis on right of asking rather than on fulfilling what the rules require, could you please send me $100 for that insight? You as good as owe it to me...

POWER perception of concentration of power, more likely, maybe?

Please project your Tesseract to 3 dimensions for us ordinary folk to understand