Weldon Merritt

Do the bylaws authorizes these "additional assessment[s] of the membership"? If so, then yes, they are binding on the members, whether are not they were in attendance. But if not (which I suspect is the case), then they cannot be imposed. RONR (12th ed.) 56:19.

Why? The process for amending the budget would be the same regardless of the nature of the mistake. Granted, some mistakes could be so minor (a misspelled word, the meaning of which is obvious, for example) that amending the budget probably would not be necessary. But whether to correct the error it is a question for the board; we have been asked how to do it.

You say "that there are no remaining eligible and willing members to serve beyond the current nominees. (Emphasis added.) That seems to indicate that there are other eligible members who are not willing to serve. This is reinforced by your statement that "any of the [wrote-n] entries on a ballot would either fall into the 'illegal' category or it would just be a repeated name of someone who has been nominated in the past but has not accepted." But it is possible that if one of those eligible but (currently) unwilling persons actually receives a majority vote for a position, they would go ahead and accept the position. Rather than continuing to try to find ways around the clear RONR requirement, your organization would be better off complying with the requirement for the coming election, and then amending the bylaws before the next election to eliminate the requirement for a ballot vote when thee is only one nominee for a given office. But if you do this, I also would recommend that the prohibition on additional nominations be eliminated, so that the members are not necessarily stuck with the candidates nominated by the NC.

If the issue is that the printed copy of the bylaws does not correctly reflect the amendments as adopted (as reflected in the minutes of the meeting where they were adopted), then no, no motion is needed. the copy cam, and should, be corrected editorially. It may be prudent to issue the corrected copy with some sort of explanation.

No! The ballot needs to list the names of the nominees, and one or more lines for write-ins (depending n the number of offices to be filled), with a box or space next to each name and write-in space. Then the voters choices are: (1) place a mark next to the name(s) of the candidate(s) for whom they wish to vote; write in the name(s) of anyone else for whom they wish to vote, and pace a mark next to each of those lines; or (3) abstain, which they can do either by submitting a blank ballot (no names selected) or by not submitting a ballot at all. "Abstain" need not (and arguably should not) be listed as a choice, as it is meaningless. Members marking "abstain" (if that choice were included on the ballot), members submitting a blank ballot, and members submitting no ballot at all, each have abstained (which simply means to not vote), and are not counted toward the number of votes cast.

No, that is not correct. the only legitimate way to vote against a candidate is to vote for another candidate. Even if there is only a single nominee, the voters' choices are to vote for that candidate, abstain, of vote for another eligible person (which may include a write-in candidate).

Thank you, Josh, Rob, and Dan. You have confirmed my initial thoughts on the issue. But I also wondered if maybe the Opinions Committee was right after all.

In the December 2021 issue of the Parliamentary Journal, the Opinions Committee responded to a question regarding Executive Board and Executive Session. The published opinion is fairly lengthy, and most of it is irrelevant to my question, which regards the statement, “Under RONR … board meetings are held in public session, open to the general membership, unless the board has adopted a rule or established a clear custom to the contrary.” (Emphasis added.) In support, the opinion cites RONR 9:24: “A meeting enters into executive session only when required by rule or established custom, or upon the adoption of a motion to do so.” The cited language first appears in the 11the edition, at p. 95, ll. 26-28. The relevant prevision in the 10th edition, at p. 93, ll. 2-3: “board or committee meetings are customarily held in executive session.” So the rule seems to have gone from board meetings being in executive session unless otherwise provided to being in open session unless otherwise provided. That seems to be a fairly significant change between the 10th and 11th editions, yet I don’t recall it being listed as a significant change to the 11th edition. So my first question is, was this indeed an intentional change between the 10th and 11th editions? And my second and more important question is, does this indeed mean that board meetings are open to the general membership unless otherwise provided? That certainly is the conclusion reached in the opinion published in the PJ, although the cited language does not explicitly say so. I will welcome anyone’s views on the issue, but I am particularly hopeful that one of the Authorship Team members will weigh in.

Any such requirement, if it exists, would need to be in the bylaws of the parent organization. That, in itself, does not require that the subordinate unit bylaws be submitted to the parent unit. B ut it does make it more likely that the parent unit bylaws will contain such a requirement.

That's because RONR contains no such prohibition. While new business typically is not brought up under Good of the Order, there is no reason it could not be if it is otherwise in order.

I don't have the citation, but the default rule is that except for the duty of presiding at meetings, that the president has only those powers provided in the bylaws. If the power to cancel a meeting isn't there, he doesn't have it,

Yes, that is what I meant to say. And I would swear that's what I typed. I don't know what happened to "is defeated."

Also, if there if the reason for wanting to "cancel" the meeting is that the board anticipates having no business to conduct, a couple of members could show up, convene the meeting, and then immediately adjourn it. But if a quorum shows up anyway, and the motion to adjourn, they can go ahead and conduct business anyway,

I see nothing in the quoted provisions that would give the president the authority to cancel a scheduled meeting. So there is no need to "override" the president; all that is necessary is for a quorum to so up at the schedule time and location, elect a chair pro tem if necessary, and conduct the meeting. Of course, it may be prudent to let the members know that the meeting will take place anyway, notwithstanding the president's invalid attempt to cancel it.

Any organization that wishes to do this already has an "out." All they have to do is add the phrase, "including the office of president" in their vacancy-filling provision.

Not in so many words. But the bylaws always take precedence over ROINR, so if the bylaws say that the dues shall be as specified in the standing rules, that's all the authority you need.

Apparently, you did delete. Or at least whatever you said at first. I will venture to say that the provision for allowing collection of dues must be in the bylaws, but I see no reason why the bylaws can't specify that the amounts will be as provided in the standing rules. That is, for example, how NAP dues are set. And with three of the four current RONR officers being active NAP members, I am confident that if that were not valid, they would say so.

And to reiterate what Dr. Kapur said, you can resign as president if you want to, but that doesn't mean you would still be the VP. It means that you would no longer have any office.

I lived in Texas at the time, so it's very much in my memory. And I finally remembered who was appointed to the vacancy created by LBJ's resignations. It was William Buckley. But he was then defeated in the subsequent special elections by John Tower, who was the first Republican senator form Texas since Reconstruction.

I am reminded or the 1960 General Election, in which Lyndon Johnson ran for reelection as a Senator from Texas and for Vice President as JFK's running mate. He won both elections and, of course, chose to serve as VP. I don't recall offhand who was appointed to fill the resulting senatorial vacancy. I also recall that some of LBJ's opponents liked to say, "Don't be half-safe; scratch Lyndon twice."

It looks to me like you explained it very well, Atul. I don't know how it could have been any more clear.

Yes, unanimous consent may be used for any motion in lieu of an actual vote. There are some who believe that UC is inappropriate for certain important issues, such as those involving finances. But RONR places no restrictions on its use. At least none that I can think of offhand. I'm sure that if I have overlooked any RONR restriction, someone will bring it to our attention shortly.

I also overlooked the part about "advisory committee." I agree that it would be helpful to know more about the details.

So far as RONR is concerned, one either is a member or not. And if one is a member, he or she has all of the rights and (with limited exceptions) obligations of membership. So the answers to your questions will need to be fond in your bylaws (or if applicable, the board's establishing statutes).

I concur with Mr. Lages.