Gary Novosielski

Appointing a board member for a day from the audience would require a vote of the board, which cannot take place without a quorum. But If that would have solved your problem, then lowering the quorum by 1 would be a better solution.

No. But it seems to me that the President should have made her statement during the time for Officer's Reports, if you are using the standard order of business. But at this point it's water under the Rainbow Bridge.

You start out with debate on the Resolved portion. If debates are offered, you debate them and vote on them. When no (more) amendments are offered on the Resolved portion, and debate is completed, you simply move on to debating the Preamble. Amendments to the preamble are in order, and are handled the same way. None of these votes are votes of approval on any portion of the language of the resolution, they are simply votes to agree or not agree to the amendments offered. They do not imply approval of the resolution as a whole. When there are no more amendments or further debate, the question is put on the entire resolution as (potentially) amended. That is the only vote to approve or reject the actual resolution.

Once both portions of the motion--Resolved, then Whereas--have been amended (strike "voted on and approved"), there is a vote to approve the motion as a whole.

Well, and assuming voting is actually absentee. Many such systems are used for in-person meetings.

Was there ever an actual post? It appears the entire question was asked in the title. In any case, all questions arising out of an election are the purview of the assembly holding the election.

It depends on how the law is phrased. Many such procedural laws say "unless the bylaws otherwise provide". If the bylaws adopt RONR as the parliamentary authority, then they do otherwise provide.

Was this notice submitted with the call either because it was required, or in order to lower a vote threshold where applicable? And was the motion actually moved at the first meeting and then Postponed, or was it simply not moved? The reason for the questions is that if the motion was simply not moved, it is not considered to have been officially postponed, and the notice does not automatically carry over to the next regular meeting. But if the motion was moved and seconded, and it was then moved to postpone it, it is still considered to have had previous notice. At least that's how I read it. Stay tuned.

It would be in order to move it, but if I were a delegate I would never vote Yes on such a motion to give carte blanche permission to the board to change the bylaws. We have pointed out in other threads here how a single comma can completely change the meaning of a sentence: Let's eat, Grandma! Let's eat Grandma! And allowing "other" changes imposes no limits at all. RONR contains suggested language that is much more specific, authorizing the Secretary, for example: ... to correct article and section designations, punctuation, and cross-references and to make such other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect the intent of the Society.... And such a motion would usually be made in connection with a specific question, not as a blanket power.

If the rules in RONR apply, a board president has no veto power whatsoever. The presiding officer may rule that a given motion is out of order when it is first moved, and give reasons for this ruling at the time, but believing it to be a bad idea is not a valid reason. It would have to violate some black-letter rule. Once a motion is passed by the board, that is the decision of the board and not subject to veto. If your rules give a veto power to the president, that's another matter, since your rules would supersede those in RONR.

It seems to me, if the proposal contained an amount, that agreeing to the proposal itself amounts to approving an expenditure of the amount. But that has no bearing on what belongs in the minutes. The minutes are to contain a record of the motion that was actually approved--word for word.

No, it would not carry over. The only way I can see that it would is if he rejoined during the penalty period. But presuming it was defined as calendar days (and I see nothing to suggest otherwise) it would have expired during the time period that he was not a member.

You may not be violating any Open Meetings law, but e-mail communications might create other potential problems, in that they may be what lawyers (I am not one) call discoverable, in that they would be subject to examination in connection with legal action, and if destroyed could put somebody in hot legal water. In order not to subject your entire personal email history to such examination it may be advisable to conduct your Village business on a separate account, especially one provided by the Village itself. But as I noted above, I'm not a lawyer and not qualified to offer an actual opinion on this, only to tell you what I've heard from the grapevine. You would be well advised to follow it up with actual legal advice.

I'm with Mr. Martin on this one. Since a Whereas clause doesn't create an action, but merely explains the rationale for the resolution, it's hard to see how it would create a problem with the bylaws. I get the feeling we're getting the relevant info in dribs (and possibly drabs) that make it difficult to see the overall picture.

Many societies require that back dues are owed unless the member officially resigns and that resignation is accepted. If that does occur, the member may not simply renew, but must apply for membership as if a new member. The most common reason that a resignation would not be accepted is to prevent a member from escaping the payment of back dues.

Well, there are rules requiring that debate be germane to the pending question. Unless these personal stories are really germane rather than purely personal. they should not be permitted.

The prohibition against adopting a motion that conflicts with the bylaws does not apply to bylaws amendments, since amendments to the bylaws are likely to conflict with what that document currently says in an effort to make it say something else.

Check the index; tellers' report -- 418

Did the member actually resign from membership, or just fail to renew? That is, was a resignation, if any, accepted? Upon renewal, did the member pay up all the back dues for the four years?

There's nothing null or void about the election as a whole. It appears you have no eligible candidates for one of the offices. That's the only glitch you need to deal with. Except in the unlikely event that a write-in candidate wins a majority in that election, a second ballot must be held. Additional nominations from the floor would again be in order, but I'm guessing you would need to do that at a meeting.

If the rules in RONR apply, the Board is subordinate to the Membership, and has only the authority granted to it in the bylaws. So, the Board cannot create any rules that the Membership is obliged to obey. The Membership could, however, issue instructions to the Board, which it must follow.

Minutes describe what was done, and also when it was done, so I don't see how you could recreate minutes that didn't refer to the meeting date. There would be no point in having a notary present, unless the notary had knowledge of what was done at these meetings.

I'm absolutely certain she isn't right.

Fine, but Recess is explicitly listed as an item to be recorded, if needed for completeness or clarity. And that's an easy case to make. At least it seems it would be much easier to assert that it helped completeness than to try to suspend the rule saying that it should. I wouldn't even bother objecting to a unanimous consent request if it came to that. No harm, no foul, no breach.

Yes, I missed the fact that this was a committee of the board. Still, I concur that the specific instruction is valid, and while a future board could decide to change the membership or the instructions, this would not be mandatory, nor would it be automatic.