jstackpo

I don't think there is as RONR doesn't consider the case of a "delayed", or effective in the future, resignation.

At the April meeting, simply move to (re)open nominations, RONR p. 288.

Yes, provided that the officers in question are members of the group. (Quite unusual if they are not.) The presiding officer should refrain from making motions, debating, &c. in the interest of remaining, or appearing at least, impartial. If the "group" is a small board (~12 or fewer) then the presiding officer can fully participate (and seconds are not required).

When you say "acted upon", in the case of a future effective date for a resignation, are you referring to the adoption of the motion to accept the resignation, or the future effective date when the resigner is officially gone?

No rule in RONR would prevent him/her from holding on to the position, after the failed election.

RONR doesn't use the term "executed" so I'm not clear what you are asking. Take a look at pages 291 & 467 and see if the discussion there clear things up for you.

No, No. YOU're supposed to be spending all your days chasing spam away, not me!

I suppose you could spend all your days chasing Spammers away, but there sure are a lot of them showing up very recently. Have I got a deal for you on bitcoins!!!! Yeah, right.

Oh, and after you separate the "Standings" from the "Specials" list them in separate documents, still attached to, but clearly not part of, the bylaws.

I suppose it is hopeless to try to find the minutes of the meeting(s) where those P, P, & Rs were adopted. An approach to take would be to look at each individual rule and (try to) decide if it fits the RONR definition of a "Standing Rule" (p. 18, administrative stuff) or "Special Rules of Order" (p. 15ff., procedural rules that may, or may not, differ from RONR's rules) and then label them accordingly. The former are easier to amend (or rescind) than the latter, per RONR. Chances are they are one or the other. (There is no third variation in RONR anyway.)

Your questions can only be answered by careful study of your bylaws, I fear, in particular those portions that delineate the powers (if any) of your board. Please don't post your bylaws here as we are not in a position to figure out what they may mean. See p. 588 for some possible "how to figure them out" steps. Or hire a parliamentarian... Contact either (or both) the ... National Association of Parliamentarians 213 South Main St. Independence, MO 64050-3850 Phone: 888-627-2929 Fax: 816-833-3893; e-mail: hq@NAP2.org <<www.parliamentarians.org>> or American Institute of Parliamentarians 618 Church Street, Ste 220 Nashville, TN 37219 phone: 888-664-0428 e-mail: aip@aipparl.org << www.aipparl.org >> for a reference or information. Both organizations offer training and contacts with local parliamentarians.

But be careful what you wish for. Depending on how your bylaws are phrased, all your elected officers may well be (technically) ex officio members of the Board of Directors.

The "standard" is one particular amendment at a time, with a vote on each proposal individually. However, if a sub-group of amendments all deal with essentially one change to the bylaws such that adopting some and defeating others would make no logical sense, they can (and probably should) be voted on all at once "in gross". (RONR doesn't use the word "slate".) See also "Conforming Amendments", p. 275. The danger of requiring a vote on all amendments at once, when they are (partially) unrelated, is that one or two "bad" (unpopular) amendments could cause the defeat of the entire set, the good along with the bad. (Babies and bathwater effect.)

Alexis H sed: "Without a bylaws authorization" Well, maybe, but p. 405 lines 12-13 are pretty explicit that a bylaw provision is required to allow preferential voting (so called "transferable votes") to take place. The use of the Borda count system is another possibility, but that is just my high horse.

Majority rules..... (Hire a stenographer and then test the members, after the meeting, on the content of the verbatim "minutes". If they flunk the test, they don't get their expenses reimbursed...)

Not to get snarky or anything.... but if you don't follow RONR why bother with elections at all? And now, in a spirit of contrition for snarkyness, to try to be helpful... Get (appoint) LOTS of tellers so that you can divvy up your 500 ballots into five (or some other number) batches and have a set of tellers (minimum three) do each batch of ballots in "parallel" in five separate counting rooms. Then just total results. Should be finished some five times faster.

Or if you want to get off the hook of having to argue with her, explain to her that she can make a motion requesting "more details" in the minutes and a (second, separate) motion that her non-voting be included in the minutes. That will probably be the end of it, especially if both motions get roundly defeated. Majority to adopt in both cases.

No, but some sort of indication from the presiding officer that the meeting has (or is about to) officially begin is appropriate. Those words are as good as any.

It might... but then why do the bylaws include the words "of the BOD"? See RONR p. 589, lines 34ff. (Not to mention "2/3 majority" as a misleading combination of words. For mathematicians "2/3 majority" computes out to "more than 2/6" or more than 1/3.)

Unfortunately, your bylaws phrasing of the vote requirement ("2/3 majority vote of the BOD") does not match any of the standard and well defined definitions of vote requirements found on page 400ff. This leaves you with the chore (to be undertaken by your association) to resolve what your phrasing "really" means and (one can only hope) fix your bylaws to avoid ambiguities in the future.

And if someone gives you an argument, show him/her page 378, line 1ff. Incidentally, the clarification of that rule (the legitimacy of debating then ending remarks by moving the PQ) first appeared in the 1990 edition of RONR, and then, with a slight augmentation, in the 2000 edition, only after considerable (heated-?) debate in one or more of the professional parliamentary journals. Guess which side of the debate the principal author of RONR (at that time) was on.

Page 3 is clear that members have a right to attend; logically that means non-members have no such right. And page 648, lines 9ff., says much the same in a different context.

And if the association is incorporated, then the laws relating to incorporation will most assuredly take precedence over RONR, whether the association is not-for-profit, a stock company, a co-op, or whatever. The law may give a "parliamentary authority" (e.g., RONR) some standing, but that will be for your lawyers to tell you about, not us.

And if someone wants to argue with this as to who is the boss, tell them to go read page 482, line 25ff.

Only if the society formally authorizes it, either in bylaws or by a special rule (of order, sorta).