Gary Novosielski

I think you mean Emily Litella.

I think that would be okay. If the winner could be reached immediately, there would still be time for a second ballot in the event the winner declined. That's a better outcome than scheduling a follow-up meeting to complete the election. OOps, I see Atul said essentially the same thing. And messages can't be deleted for some reason.

And the inference to be drawn from Mr. Elsman's conclusion is that voting members refers to those with the right to vote, whether they actually vote or not.

In the first place, it is not necessary for the current treasurer to step down in order to run for the Board. Since there may be other candidates for the Board of Governors, it would be wise for her to see if she wins election before she decides whether to resign from the treasurer position. If both positions are up for election at the same time, she can even run for both. And if she is willing to perform the duties of both positions should no one else be willing, and if your bylaws don't prohibit this, then RONR has no problem with it either.

If you did not decline "immediately" upon being informed of your election, you may very well now be Treasurer. Did you?

The only problem I see is that she was apparently allowed to remain after calming down. If my understanding is correct that the assembly at that point had already voted that she was to be removed, she should have been removed for the remainder of the meeting.

Yes, but in fact if the rules in RONR apply there is neither a motion, nor a second, nor a vote on approval of minutes. When the minutes are read (or distributed in advance) the chair, without a motion, asks, "Are there any corrections to the minutes?" Members may offer corrections, which are usually adopted by unanimous consent, but if there is disagreement, the question of whether to agree to the correction is decided by a majority vote. The chair asks "Are there any further corrections?" The chair then announces "As there are no (further) corrections, the minutes stand approved as <read/printed/corrected>." There isn't any vote on final adoption, since the rules demand that the minutes be approved, and it is not possible to vote No if the minutes are accurate. The only way to object to the approval of minutes is to offer a correction. Members may participate fully in the above process whether they were in attendance or were members at the time covered by the minutes, or not.

I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Elsman. There is no need for a nominee to consent to being nominated, and no mechanism to withdraw such consent. The rules in RONR say that if a candidate, is elected while absent, the candidate may decline immediately or accept, upon being notified of the results of the election. This rule is not conditioned upon the member having been nominated or not, only upon being elected and being absent. There is no problem with the secretary communicating her wishes not to be elected, but if she is elected anyway, I believe the rule applies.

Yeah, point taken.

The proper way to avoid being bound by adopted motions is to resign from the organization. Failing that, expulsion from membership can be equally effective.

Not ordinarily. A recommendation to approve funds can be included in a committee report.

A 2/3 vote is satisfied if there are at least twice as many Yes votes as No votes. Abstentions and absences are not votes.

Advisory, and arguably inadvisable. All that is necessary is for the president to announce such appointments, typically during the time for reports of officers.

I am trying to get my head around the concept that a group of rational beings would rebel at the idea that they democratically choose the time and date of the next meeting, yet not rebel at the idea that one individual should have he power to dictate when and where they must show up, no matter how inconvenient. Since the bylaws are typically voted on by the general membership, it is usually the case that the board meets whenever the full membership says they do. It has been amply demonstrated in practice that having a planned and predictable day when meetings are held leads to more reliable attendance.

I suspect they're confusing this with the rule that two members of a committee may call a meeting if the chair fails to do so.

Yes, the president was quite correct. You can't vote unless you are present. And you can't vote before voting begins.

If the board wishes to do so, there's no rule against it in RONR. However, a person on the phone is not considered "present" and does not count toward a quorum. The board may allow them to speak, but not to vote. To allow full participation by phone, the bylaws would have to be amended to authorize this and to set down rules for how such participation would be handled.

Simply combine the names on all the lists. That is your pool of nominees. You're voting for people, not for lists.

The word emergency appears three times in the text, twice referring to an emergency adjournment, and once with respect to expiring terms of officers. Emergency meetings are not mentioned. So, unless emergency meetings are covered in your bylaws, RONR treats any meeting called for a time not that of a regular meeting as a special meeting. And without a bylaws provision special meetings, emergency meetings, or whatever you call them, are not allowed. Any decisions reached at such a "meeting" would be null and void. Ratifying the decisions at the next board meeting would be in order, within the rules of §10 regarding ratification, particularly that an assembly can ratify only those actions that it would have had the authority to authorize in advance.

It is not clear to me that the motion to Reconsider was in order in the first place. It is clear it the motion to be reconsidered was not adopted earlier in the same meeting or the previous day.

It's better than Lauren Auder, or Okei Sosumi.

Of course not. I just believe they should.

That's why Josh has that statement in his signature. 👇

A single member can't table anything, and nobody can table something because they don't agree with the formatting. So what should have happened was that the chair should have ruled the (motion?) to table as out of order. If the board wishes to prepare a new budget, it was probably not a wise choice to allow the report to be tabled in the first place. But at this point, anyone can move to take the report from the table at the next meeting. Special meetings can't be called except by following the procedures that are (hopefully) contained in your bylaws. See FAQ #12 for more information on the motion to Lay on the Table.

Please post your question as a new topic. Thanks.