Weldon Merritt

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.

See RONR (12th ed.) 21:2-3.

My apology. I see hat you already did start a new thread.

Guest Feb E, please post your question as a new topic. This thread is six months old.

Nobody said that. The recourse is to attempt to create an accurate set of minutes that properly reflect what was done, as suggested by Mr. Huynh. Then create an accurate copy of the bylaws based on those minutes.

"One" may do so only if the bylaws give "one" the authority to do so. If the annual meeting is call to order at the scheduled time, the assembly may set an adjourned meeting for a date 30 days later, if they want to do so, and then adjourn the current meeting.

Maybe between :should never" and "should never ever."😁

Yes, so long as the board quorum was a majority (which, as I recall, it is). As soon as the three members had resigned, the quorum would have instantly adjusted to be a majority of three, rather than a majority of seven.

I agree that this is a very unusual situation. But if an organization cannot be expected to consider the possibility of such an unusual circumstance, why should the RONR authors be expected to?

Is it? Or is it a problem with the organization's failure to provide for such a possibility? The organization easily could have included such a provision in its bylaws. It's not the authors' responsibility to anticipate everything that could go wrong.