Weldon Merritt

48:5(1): "The name of the maker of a main motion should be entered in the minutes, but the name of the seconder should not be entered unless ordered by the assembly." OK; it says "should,' not "must," so one might argue that it's not actually a requirement. But I think most of us view it as a requirement, so I stand by my advice that if an organization doesn't want to do it, they should adopt a special rule of order saying so.

I don't think it does. Personally, I don't even see a good reason for saying who made the motion. I have heard various arguments about why that information should be included, but none I have heard seem persuasive to me. But RONR requires it, so I think it would require a special rule of order to routinely omit it.

Yes, I suppose sometimes it's easier to take smaller steps to begin with.

I agree.

How about just, "After debate, the motion was adopted"? I see no need to mention the PQ order.

And I agree with you about that rule. Although I think 9.4 is more on point for organizations whose bylaws specify the number of days' notice required.

The only problem with that approach is that if there is a dispute about whether timely notice has been provided, the postmark likely is the best evidence of when the notice was sent (if it was sent by postal mail). Except when the organization uses a specific time in its bylaws as the deadline for notice, as the organization Mr. Brown mentioned does. I was simply pointing out that if the organization really wanted to allow the latest possible time for sending notice on a specified day, 11:59:59 Pacific Time wouldn't do it. But I also said that there was a reasonableness factor, and that I would not actually propose using the westernmost time zone as the determinant.

The most possible time? Even assuming this is an organization all of whose members live in the United States, what about residents of Alaska and Hawaii? Alaska is one hour behind the Pacific time zone, and Hawaii is three hours behind. And if they really wanted to allow the most possible time, they should have picked whatever time zone lies immediately eat of the International Date Line. Obviously, there has to be a reasonableness factor, so I am not seriously proposing that they adopt that rule. I think the important thing, where there could be any possibility of doubt or confusion, is to make sure that the bylaws are clear.

Yes, I assumed that for your organization. But there are some (including some that many of us on this forum belong to) that have members in far-flung reaches.

Oh, I agree. It's just something that might need to be made explicit in the bylaws of any organization that has members located in different time zones. One less thing that might be used by a disgruntled member claiming insufficient notice.

Another twist for notices sent by email is whether the date/time of the notice is determined from the perspective of the sender or the recipient. If they are in different time zones, the time of the message will be different for both. And if the time zones are far enough apart, the day may be different as well.

It depends on how your bylaws define the term of office. If the term is defined as "X years or until their successors are elected," or "X years and until their successors are elected," then yes. Otherwise, no. RONR (12th ed.) 56:27. (Which conjunction is used determines how easy it is to remove them before the end of their terms, but in either case, they continue to serve until their successors are elected.)

I was just about to tell you that I thought you posted to the wrong thread. Easy enough to do.

So far as RONR is concerned, this would only require adoption of a motion by the appropriate entity (either the general membership of the board of directors, depending on who has the authority), followed by execution of the appropriate deed. But given that this is a nonprofit and you are dealing with real estate, there very well may be applicable statutes that would supersede RONR. For a more definitive answer, you should contact a knowledgeable attorney.

Nothing. Unless the current bylaws provide for such an action (which I very much doubt), they remain in full force and effect until they are properly amended.

I think the rule most likely is to protect the privacy of the expelled member, and would not preclude that person from revealing the charges. Additionally, once expelled, he is no longer a member, and therefore is not bound by rules applicable to members.

Indeed. And I somehow missed that this was an old thread, or I would have advised Father Time to start a new thread.

That's probably a good assumption. But to answer definitively , someone would need to read your bylaws in their entirety. Bylaws sometimes have provisions in unexpected locations. None of that, BTW, has any bearing on your original question about whether Member a violated the secrecy of an executive session at which he was not present. Apples and oranges.

I question the wisdom of such a provision, but if the organization is bound and determined to have it, how about this wording: "Unless otherwise provided in these bylaws, the membership of each committee shall consist of all members of [name of organization] who wish to serve on the committee. Each such committee shall select its onw chair." Maybe someone else will have a better suggestion, but that's my shot at it.

I probably would, too. But Tomm didn't ask about that, so I didn't address it. For all we know, the procedure used may have been entirely consistent with the organization's bylaws. (I wouldn't bet on it; but some organizations have strange bylaw provisions.)

If he wasn't at the meeting, then how could he possibly violate the secrecy of the meeting?

How?

I concur. In fact, RONR 9:31 defines "electronic meetings" as "meetings at which ... some or all of [the members] communicate with the others through electronic means such as the Internet or by telephone." (Emphasis added.) Based on that definition, I think any bylaws authorization for electronic meetings automatically includes hybrid meetings unless the bylaws clearly indicate otherwise. At most, an organization may need to adopt rules to ensure that those present in person and those participating electronically are treated equally.

There are a lot of other things that many (not so sure about "most") ordinary societies get wrong. The remedy is better education; not making RONR conform to these erroneous practices. And noting in the footnotes takes that right away. If the voters are ignorant of their right to continue voting for a dropped candidate, that is again a matter foe education. Whether some, or even most, ordinary societies handle "run-offs", the rule is clear. Again, the remedy is better education, not changing the rules. I believe your argument "falls to the ground" regardless. You're certainly entitled to "wish" all you want. But every form of preferential voting has its own problems, too. The late Dr. John Stackpole (if I recall correctly) once gave an excellent workshop illustrating why every form of preferential voting sometimes yields anomalous results.

I don't know about our relative "pay grades," but I have looked at the footnote multiple times, and I have no doubt that it is correct. Note that it says only that you can drop someone from the list of nominees. It explicitly states that even if dropped from that list, they remain eligible for election by write-in. Only a bylaws provision could make them ineligible.