jstackpo

And even RONR's sample bylaws have a "bad spot" or two.

If you haven't already, give a close reading to Chapter XX, particularly starting on page 654. It pretty well covers all the steps, if your bylaws don't.

In Meteorology, and that a long time ago. (At least I know how to interpret a hurricane track forecast.) Apology totally unneeded.

Help us (and Chris) out by quoting the entire section of your bylaws that includes the fragment ("with a 2/3 majority...") that you did quote. What you did cite doesn't make much sense -- I too am confused.

Since it is highly unlikely (in my experience) that your original bylaws defined or specified what an "inactive" status was (do they?), I would be willing to assert that the vote a year or so ago was meaningless. Unless the bylaws themselves said it was an option, you can't "suspend" bylaws, either in part - RONR page 13 - or in whole. (You could have rescinded them, but you didn't, evidently.) Thus it is fair to say that your organization simply exists as it always did; all you need do is read the bylaws, pick up the pieces (things that you might have missed doing since last November), notify the members of the next meeting and square things away. One thing to do at that first meeting is for the chair to formally declare the "inactive" motion null and void.

I concur (conpurr-?) with Zev's cautions (cations-?). Check with your NH-law versed attorney.

Since... "referendum votes" are not described in RONR -- they would seem to me to be a form of absentee voting which is improper unless authorized in the bylaws -- (I'll bet you could see this coming), the answer to your (implied) question would have to be in your bylaws or in the membership's interpretation of your bylaws. I don't agree with "the larger the body voting the more resolute the decision". 1 - 0 is just as decisive in determining an outcome as 345 to 582 or the like. What do you mean by "resolute"?

Nope. No meeting, no business, no minutes. Besides, committees don't usually do (formal) minutes anyway (RONR, page 500) -- a report of whatever the committee was assigned to do serves as the documentation of what the committee did. That report is what is drawn up, discussed, and adopted in a committee meeting, or meetings if it is a large and complex report.

Those restrictions are pretty substantial. And paragraph 356-B:37-d Executive Session tells me that you cannot have a "separate" closed meeting. Talk with your lawyer before doing something that gets your PITA friend upset and litigious. We can't give "real" legal advice here.

Atul sed: "quarterly"? Correct, unless those "additional times as may be specified in the condominium bylaws" say something else.

A thot: you might do well to check with the NH Law to see if there are any restrictions as to what topics you can legally consider in a closed Board meeting.

There's no Statute of Limitations here (😊) but we prefer that new questions (even on old subjects) be posted as a "Start New Topic" via the green button on the first page. But to help out anyway... seems to me that you do not need to announce any upcoming "from time to time" closed meetings ahead of time as long as such a meeting doesn't replace any of the required open monthly meetings. Those closed meetings would have to be extra meetings. You will have to announce, afterwards, the availability of the recording.

Sure, if he/she gets there, back on the Board that is, via whatever means may be specified in the bylaws.

Then when the time comes (presumably specified in the agenda -- was it?) the chair just announces that fact, pauses to make sure there isn't a motion to continue the meeting ("set aside the orders of the day"), then adjourns - p 240.

Was the agenda adopted?

Maybe, maybe not. Does the adopted (?) agenda include a time for adjournment? If the group has no more business to transact, the chair, after checking that this is true, can just declare the meeting adjourned.

I'm not so sure that p. 313 applies as the subcom just finished its work, it wasn't "discharged". P. 492, line 3 would seem to fill the bill a bit better.

Yes - see page 191ff.

Remind us (or me, at least!), with reference to your cited bylaws, exactly what your question is, please.

Not to be flippant, but why? What is it about RONR's rules that you wish to supersede? Or is it that you plan to remove some unnecessary rules (good!) from your bylaws so that RONR's default rules will be in the clear.

Resign from what? From what you say, your threatening candidate has not been elected yet. What I suspect he is trying to say is that if elected he will not accept the office. But he might very well change his mind when the results are in and he sees (maybe) how popular he is. So just finish the election process with the ballots as printed, count up all the votes, and see what happens. See page 444, line 17ff. If the "threatener" does win and promptly declines, you do NOT put the (other) petition candidate in office. After all, he did not get a majority of the votes, perhaps for very good reasons - he lost. Rerun the nomination and election process for the as yet unfilled office.

The chair just makes a ruling, at the next meeting, that the motion is improper for the reasons given and hence void. This ruling is subject to appeal.

As I read your excerpt (and provided there is NO OTHER mention of the ExecDir's rights, duties, responsibilities, &c) in your bylaws and other adopted rules), she is NOT a "Board member" with full membership rights of the Board... She has to show up at the Board meetings (I presume this is a paid position) as part of her job requirements, but cannot vote. (She is supervised by the Board, but is not a Board member herself.) UNLESS, she is also holding one of the 12 positions described in the other excerpt, Section 6.1. (She might have in the past, but that history isn't relevant now.) Ultimately the interpretation of your bylaws is up to the general membership, not some (helpful-?) bunch of people participating in web page discussions.

RONR doesn't deal with the definition(s) of tyranny. You are on your own at this point.

I'd say all of it is a pretty good definition of (petty) tyranny -- at least nobody has been rounded up (yet) and sent off to camp. It is only a tyranny to the extent you are willing to be tyrannized.