Gary Novosielski

I'm thoroughly confused. If the bylaws do not say, then why would the nominating committee make recommendations? If the rules in RONR apply, the nominating committee would have no role in filling vacancies, the 1st VP became and is now president so there is no need for any recommendations for a new president, since you have one who will serve for the remainder of that term. The former 2nd VP is now 1st VP, any other numbered VPs also shift by one posittion, and there is a vacancy in the last-VP position, which should be filled. Even if your bylaws have general rules for filling vacancies, unless they contain special rules in the case of the president in particular, The way it works is as described above. Absence is not the same as vacancy.

Even without a vote, it would be incorrect to approve the treasurer's report by the same method as minutes are approved. The chair may not state "If there are no objections, the treasurer's report is approved as read/printed."

It's not particularly well written. If you don't want term limits, just delete them. Or extend them to 12 years, without the other stuff. If people don't want the person to continue to serve, and they vote no, you're in the same pickle you are now. The only way to vote against a candidate is to vote for someone else. No is not a person. Also, you can't claim a replacement is unavailable until after holding an election. You can pass out blank ballots and have people fill in names. If some eligible person gets a majority, they're elected, unless they decline. If no one is elected you have s second (or subsequent) ballot, and keep voting until someone is elected. So again, i don't see how the availability thing would work. You'd have to specify after how many ballots, I suppose. If nobody is willing to serve in office, you have to start to consider just how viable your organization really is. Sometimes, having a frank discussion on dissolving the society will spur people into volunteering to be nominated.

No, you can't.

Perish forbid.

Even if we accept the fact that "the Board" is a colloquial term for the Officers, that does not mean that the Officers constitute an assembly of any kind or that they can have proper meetings, or make any decisions as a Board. Since they do not, it's best not to refer to them by a name which seems to suggest otherwise.

From what I've seen quoted so far, it's not evident that you even have a Board.

The word didactic means simply "apt at teaching", but for some reason has acquired a tarnished connotation over time. I suspect this is due to a tainted view of the matter by those who are not particularly "apt at learning".

Based on your paraphrase of what you believe the bylaws say, you would now seem to have 11 members, and a majority of 6. My answer might change if I knew the precise language.

I tend to agree that having different titles suggests that they are not the same thing. But since, until now, they have run concurrently, the question of how they might differ may never have come up. Besides the definitions, are the two types of year referred to anywhere else in the bylaws? What do they apply to? Would an out-of-sync condition between them cause any foreseeable side-effects that could be a problem? The unforeseeable ones could be even more of a problem but by their nature they are unforeseeable. If you want to duck the issue at this time, and not decide the question of whether they are the same, you can kick the can down the road by amending both of them to the new time frame--unless your research shows that would be even more of a problem for some reason. It's something that would probably benefit from lively debate among the membership. It is said that n-1 heads are better than one, unless n = 1.

And as a late-comer to the discussion, I can now agree with everybody! One point troubles me, however: I think it's been established that, depending on the facts, a violation may exist with respect to the parliamentarian having been given secret information. My concern is with the phrase "will soon cover it with complete clarity". If you're referring to the possible disciplinary measures that would apply to such a violation, if proven, then you might wish to have customized procedures, as some organizations find the discipline procedures in RONR to be somewhat cumbersome. But if you're referring to the rules with respect to executive session, I hope you are not planning to amend them to reflect what you thought, originally, that they said, i.e., that anyone who did not attend could not learn what happened at the meeting. I believe that would be ill-advised. The rules in RONR already have "complete clarity" on the subject, and with a century of hindsight, offer the advantage of having combed out all the knots and unintended consequences of such an amendment, which I predict would be numerous.

The VP can participate fully if not presiding. But note well, you are no longer the VP. Have you filled the vacancy in the office of VP yet?

If your bylaws provide for a presidential veto, which can be overridden by a 2/3 vote, then follow them. I know of no reason why the motion could not be made immediately, but I know nothing of your bylaws, so take that for what it's worth. RONR has no such provisions, and the president has no such power.

I think all the responses were in accordance with the rules in RONR. While it is true that such a statement would not ordinarily belong in the minutes, it is also true that if a majority wish to do so, they can include whatever they wish in the minutes without suspending or breaking any rule in RONR.

Language in a Whereas clause is there to explain the purpose of the resolution. It does not create anything new. Only the language after the word Resolved has any force and effect. If all the Whereas clauses were deleted from a resolution, the actual effects would be the same.

And if an adjourned meeting is set, and three people show up to it, they're good to go.

Well, there isn't any Idle Speculation Forum. And most non-speculative questions would belong in the general forum. But I do feel the lack of a Tomfoolery forum.

No. Keeping silent during the meeting might imply consent.

In both cases, if the rules in RONR apply, these committees report to the Membership, and the Executive Committee has no authority to review their work.

The rule in RONR is that it can't be done. (There's a modified rule for committees, but you didn't specify.)

<deleted>

Some important suggestions for inexperienced presiding officers is noted in the Index as : suggestions for inexperienced presiding officers, 454–457

Yeah, it's all straightened out.

No worries.

No. If the rules in RONR apply, such a special rule would have to be adopted by the general membership.