Weldon Merritt

RONR has nothing to say about the position, so your answers will have to come from interpretation of your bylaws. But the best suggestion I can give you is to amend the bylaws and get the IPP off the board and the EC. Most frequent participants on this forum agree that giving the IPP any official position in the bylaws is a bad idea. The best list of reason I have seen for not doing so was frequently posted by the late Dr. John Stackpole:

First of all, no one should be voting on approval of thee minutes. Once all corrections, if any, have been dealt with (either by unanimous consent or by voting if there is a disagreement about a proposed correction), and no more are offered, the chair should simply declare the minutes adopted (either as presented or as corrected). Second, anyone who is a member at the time the minutes are being considered for correction is entitled to participate in the correction process, as fully as any other member.

IMO (worth as much as Mr. Katz's), that would not change the answer.

You're probably right. And all the more reason for distrusting their pronouncements about what it says.

If a "rule" that someone says is in RONR "sounds ridiculous," there's a good chance that it is ridiculous, and is not in RONR. The best tactic to use is to hand them a copy of the book and say "show me."

I am. 😄

I suppose it is. But sometimes nomenclature can be important.

I agree that it generally is safe to assume that a nomination is am indication that the nominator believes the nominee should be elected. But I still think it would be improper for a nominating committee to couch its report in the form "that [name of nominee] be elected." I believe that would encourage the erroneous practice of voting "yes" or "no" on the committee's proposal rather than seeking additional nominations and then conducting a proper election. Better and less confusing to just stick with "the committee nominates [name of nominee]."

IMO, neither of those reports would be proper. The committee has a duty to nominate candidate, but that's all they do; nominate. The election comes later. Maybe at the same meeting, or a later meeting. But in any event, nomination and election are two distinct steps.

Yes, unless prohibited by your bylaws or some higher authority (such as an applicable statute, if any). That would be true even if both were voting positions, although the member still would only have one vote.

Or better yet, propose adoption of a special rule of order specifying how it should be done. That will ensure consistency for future elections.

I will add only that not only may the meeting be held, it should be held. Unless your bylaws provide for cancellation of a regular or properly called special meeting, it cannot be cancelled. So even if you don't have a quorum, the meeting should be held, even if the only thing you can do is to then adjourn (maybe after first scheduling an adjourned meeting).

Based on the bylaws you posted, it appears to me that election of the officers is occurring properly, as provided in the bylaws. And the provision that the president is "to make such appointments as he deems necessary" certainly seems to me to include appointment of the managers. So indeed, it appears that the players have no voice in either process.

No, unless the constitution specifically allows for waiver of the ballot requirement under those circumstances. Even if there is only one nominee for each position, members still have the right to case a write-in vote (unless the constitution specifically prohibits doing so).

I'm reasonably certain that the bylaws say more than just "we follow Robert's Rules." Please quote the provisions regarding league membership, selection of managers, and election of the board. Also, to avoid confusion, it would be best if you stick with the same guest name for the duration of the thread. Otherwise, it becomes hard to tell if we are talking with one person or several.

What do the bylaws say about how the managers ae chosen and how the board is elected? Also, how do the bylaws define the league membership?

I agree, provided the word "that" is deleted.

IMO, it is. RONR has no requirement that the chair of a committee be selected from among the committee members. So if a non-member is selected to chair a committee, that does not make the chair a member of the committee.

In most cases, the committee chair is selected from among the committee members, but that is not a specific requirement.

I suppose that depends on your viewpoint, It certainly violates no rule in RONR. No. That would violate the members' right to abstain (or in this instance, to partially abstain). It would require a bylaws provision to disallow bullet voting.

I think a lot of on this forum share Guest Zev's view.

I understand, and certainly don't blame you personally for the dilemma. You have my sympathy as you try to work through the mess.

That's unfortunate, and a good example of why such provisions generally are unwise.

I concur with Mr. Brown's response, which is more complete than mine. But if the election is held and there still is no one elected who is willing to serve, I stand by my response that it may be time to dissolve the organization for lack of interest. (Sometime, just the threat of having the organization dissolved is enough to persuade someone to serve.)

Well, you can't force someone to serve if they don't want to. I suppose you could keep going for a while by electing a chair pro tem for each meeting. But that person would only preside at the meeting, and would not have any of the president's administrative duties or powers. If there really is no one who will take the positions, then it seems to me that you are better off dissolving the organization. Clearly, the members aren't interested enough in the organization to keep it going. (And if you say that you are interested in keeping it going, my question would be why do you not run for president?)