Weldon Merritt

O, en otras palaabras: Los moderadores no están equipados para tratar conversaciones en otros idiomas además del inglés y, como consecuencia, se solicita a los carteles que publiquen todos los mensajes en inglés solamente. Los mensajes publicados en otro idioma que no sea inglés se eliminarán en breve.

👍

Estoy de acuerdo con J.J.

The minutes always should reflect what actually happened, whether that is what should have happened or not. As far as the invalidity of the elections, notwithstanding the opinions we have given you, an offical determination of their invalidity must be made at a meeting. Either someone may raise a Point of Order and the chair will rule, or the chair may make the ruling on his or her own initiative. Either way, the minutes of that meeting should include the Point of Order and the chair's ruling.

Guest Buffy, please post your question in a new thread. This thread is almost nine years old!

Yes, in thinking about it further, I believe that's probably correct. So if the bylaws allow the board to fill the vacancies, then they could go ahead and do it (without the vote of those whose terms have ended), then complete the election at the first opportunity. You probably are correct on that point as well. Unfortunately, it's a moot issue since the bylaws don't include either phrase. But maybe they can persuade the long-absent member to submit a resignation so they can accept it and then fill the vacancy (perhaps with the member who was invalidly elected).

Oh, boy! Those answers complicate things. (At least in my view; maybe some of my colleagues will have different ideas.) First, if what you have posted is all the bylwas say about the term of office, and there is no "until their successors are elected" langauge, there are a couple of consequences. First, the member who had not submitted a resignation actually is still in office until they do submit one, and the election of their successor was invalid. Once they submit a resignation and it is accepted, there will be a vacancy to be filled, but in my opinion, the person who was "elected" to the position will not automatically fill it. The vacancy-filling provisions of your bylaws will need to be followed, or if there are no such provisions in the bylaws, an election will have to be held for that position. If everyone else was "re-elected" to the same office, no harm done there, but the positions will be up for election again next year (as will the one for which the incumbent had not resigned). The second, probably more serious, consequence is that all of the positions for which elections should have been held are now vacant, and the elections for those offices need to be comleted as soon as possible. If you have regular meetngs thorughout the year, you can give notice of the elections at the next meeting (for which there is sufficient time to give reasonable notice). Or, if the AGM is the only meeting you normally have, but your bylaws provide for calling a special meeting, you can call a special meeting and complete the election there. If neither of those conditions apply, then it seems that you are stuck with the vacancies until your next annual meeting. Re the numbering of the positions, I supected that probably was the reason you did it; but obviously it didn't work for you this year. But my main reason for suggesting not numberng them is that numbering them implies (at east to me) that candidates must run for a specific numbered position, when they all should just be running for director-at-large. It shouldn't be too difficult for someone to keep track of whose terms expire when. Presumably you keep a list of officers, so why not just add a notation such as , "expires [year]" beside each name? Finally, I also recommend amending the bylaws to specify that officers serve "two years [or/and] until their successors are elected." (See RONR pp. 653-654, "Removal from Office" for guidance on whether to use "or" or "and" in that provision.) Had you had such a provision in your current bylaws, those whose terms expired this year would stil be in office until their sucessors were elected, and the person elected to the postion held by the member who had not attended for a while but had not resigned might have been valid. I say "might" because whether that election was valid or not would have depended on whether the bylaws used the conjuction "or" or "and."

If I understand you correctly, your members-at-large serve overlapping two-year terms, and at this year's annual meetng, you somehow held an election for the terms that were filled one year ago, insted of those filled two years ago. I don't thinkk we can properly respond until you answer two questions: (1) Did anyone who was elected last year not run for re-election? I know you said "that everyone who sought a position ... was either elected or re-elected," but did any of the incumbents not seek re-election? (2) How do your bylaws define the term of office for the members-at-large? Please post the exact language, not a paraphrase. In the meantime (and indpenedenty of trying to fix the error), I would advise eliminating the numbering of the positions (MAL-1, MAL-2, etc.), and just hold an election for however many positions are open in a given year. For example, if you have eight MAL positions, you would need to elect four each year (assuming no mid-term vacancies to be filled). So just have members vote for up to four, and the four who receive the highest majorities are elected. Of course, you will need to keep track of whose terms expire each year, but that really isn't a difficult task. If you also have mid-term vacancies to be filled, it gets a little more complicated, but not a whole lot. And you can always come back for advice in that event (preferably before you hald the election).

See RONR Chapter XX.

Isn;t "a small margin" still a majority?

I don't agree that "if one follows the plain meaning of the instructions therein, one will be behaving wrongly according to RONR." The text seems pretty clear to me, and apparently to everyone else who has repsonded to this thread.

Calion's concern seems to be that In Brief does not mention anything about including oral committee reports in the minutes. But given that there are so few instances when oral reports are proper, sayimg that In Brief gives "an entirely false impression of how committee reports are treated" is a bit of a stretch. If In Brief included all of the details for everything it covers, it would no longer be "brief." That's why it includes references to the full RONR where all of the details are covered.

Oh, I completely agree. I was just commenting that those who think RONR's don't make sense are free to adopt their own rules on the subject.

Or, by the same token, an organization could adopt a rule that oral reports of officers be entered into the minutes. Or that written reports of officers and committeed be attached to the minutes. The point is that if an organmziation thinks something should be done differently from what RONR specifies, it (usually) can adopt rules to override the RONR rule. Whether it should do so is another matter.

Just for clarification, for a board meeting, "the assembly" refers to the board. Members of the organization who are not board members have no individual right to see the board minutes, although the general membership, in it's assembly, may order the board minutes to be produced and read. For the board's executive session minutes, this should also be done in executive session.

Also, if you are using the CD-ROM version, you can click on the number and it will take you directly to that section.

If the membership is simply ignorant of their authority, you can try to educate as many of them as you can. This doesn't have to be in any formal setting; you can just talk with them individually. or maybe you could invite some of them to an infomral meeting of your own. If, on the other hand, the membership is indifferent to their authority, there's not much you can do about it. Parliamentary procedure works only for those who are willing to learn at least enough to know their rights, and are willing to exercise them.

They don't have to like it; they just have to comply if the motion is adopted. You would make the motion at a membership meeting, not a board meetingand if you have enough allies among the general membership, you should be able to get the motion adopted. The board is subordinate to the membership, so if the board doesn't comply, they can be subject to discipline by the membership.

I will modify my statement a bit. If you are requesting that an individual (such as the secretary) do somthing (such as providing a copy of the minutes), then adding "please" certainly wouldn't hurt, and might help. The same is probably true if you are addressing the board at a board meeting and you are not a board member (I don't recall if you said whether you are, but I think not), which you can do only with their permission. But if you are seeking, at a membershiop meeting, to require the board to do something, then it is appropriate to move that the board be ordered to do it. ("I move that the board be ordered to ....") No need for a "please" in that instance.

Probably couldn't hurt.

I conur with my colleague, Mr. Brown, and add that if you don't want the person, nominate and vote for someone else. I also point out that there sometimes may be very good reasons for an officer to resign, which reasons may not exist later when the officer runs again. If you adopt a bylaws provision to prohibit running again, you may wind up precluding a good candidate from being elected.

Guest Elizabeth, please post your question as a new topic. This thread is over two years old.

Mr. Brown and Dr. Kapur seem to assume that by citing the RONR provisions on nominations and elections, Mr. Elsman and I imply that the organization is limited to endorsing only one candidate. I certainly did not mean to imply that, and based on his more recent post, apparently neither did Mr. Elsman. As most of us are aware, it is perfectly proper under RONR's nomiation and election provisions to elect two (or more) officers to equivalent positions (most comonly, directors). Certainly Alex M's organization is free to use any other method they choose. But he asked if his other ideas were "dumb," and in my (and it seems, Mr. Elsman's) opinion, they are. (OK, maybe "dumb" is too strong. But unless the organization has a very good reason for doing something else, they will be better served, in my opinion, by uing RONR's method.)

I concur with Mr. Elsman. While you are not nominating and electing officers for your organization, I believe the RONR provisions Mr. Elsman cited would work very well for deciding on candidates to be endorsed.

True. And in accordance with "the accepted female gender roles of General Robert's day," it would have been rare for a female to serve as an officer in any organization (except an exclusively or primarily female organization). So I doubt that gender discrimination was the motivation for the rule. I agree, however, that regardless of the original motivation for the rule, it doesn't make a lot of sense. Perhaps it's heresy to say it, but the mere fact that "General Robert said so" does not mean that the rule is forever immune from being questioned or abolished.