Gary Novosielski

You are incorrect. Being present or verbally accepting a nomination are not required. If it should happen that a person who is not present is elected, then the election is not complete until the person is notified, and does not immediately decline the office. Your rules differ from those in RONR in an important way. They state that to be elected a candidate must receive a majority, not of those present and actually voting, but rather of those present and merely eligible to vote. This makes it impossible to abstain without affecting the result of the election. The vote count necessary to elect, in your rules, is not a majority of ballots cast as would be the case in RONR, but rather of people present. Therefore, an abstention, although technically not a vote, would have the same effect as a vote against all candidates on the ballot. Also, your rules appear to define majority as "at least 51%", while the actual definition is "more than half". Your rules supersede the rules in RONR, where the two do not agree.

No, the president does not resume the office after losing the other election. Once the resignation is accepted, it is irreversible. And the vice-president becomes president for the unexpired remainder of the term, creating a vacancy in the office of vice president. For this reason, it is quite unwise to resign before the results of the election are known.

If I'm reading that right, you were not presiding at the meeting, but were giving the report of a committee. Is that correct?

Do your bylaws actually contain the language "led by the Board"?

If your copy of RONR has numbered Articles, you do not have the 11th edition.

Those links do not link to the actual messages, but rather are links to report those messages for violations.

No, but filling the vacancy certainly would.

RONR uses member to refer to the people who make up a particular body (board, committee, general assembly) with full rights to attend, make motions, speak in debate, and vote. These are the people who count toward a quorum. Other people are non-members, or guests. They may attend with the majority permission of the members, and might also be given permission to speak, as long as no motion is pending. They may not make motions, or speak in debate without a 2/3 vote to suspend the rules. And they may not vote under any circumstances.

If you're referring to days notice: Unless otherwise provided in the bylaws, the number of days is computed by counting all calendar days (including holidays and weekends), excluding the day of the meeting but including the day the notice is sent.

Please post new questions in a new Topic.

Refer to §24. Appeal, RONR (11th ed.) for additional details on how to handle an Appeal.

1. Yes, see J. Katz's answer. They are approved in secret (closed or 'executive' sesson), and their contents remain secret unless and until the board decides otherwise. 2. The right to see the minute refers to members of the body whose minutes these are, viz. the board. For instance, a member of the board who had the right to be present but did not attend has the right to see (and approve) the minutes of that meeting. It does not mean that any member of the organization can see the minutes (at least as far as RONR is concerned. See disclaimer below). You are correct about what the minutes should contain. Discussion should not be included. That does not mean that the office person's contemporaneous notes may not prove valuable, and she should not destroy them, but that doesn't mean that any of that information belongs in the minutes.

On a voice vote or rising (uncounted) vote, no count was taken, so none is announced. But as this was a ballot vote then, as with any counted vote, the vote counts must be announced, and recorded in the minutes. If the threshold for passage was a majority, there was no point in announcing that it passed by two-thirds, and potentially misleading, as it suggests that a two-thirds vote was the requirement. But you are not required to "publish" anything, according to RONR.

And the right word for the rite of approving the minutes is not write, nor wright, but right.

Until the resignation was accepted, the resigning member was still a trustee, and would count toward a quorum. But upon acceptance, there would suddenly be only three members present, so a quorum would be lost, and it would not be possible to appoint a replacement at that same meeting.

Then it would appear that a recount and retabulation of the teller's report would be in order, reflecting the fact that 50 ballots were cast, and that 26 votes are required to elect. It would be impossible for any candidate to receive more than 50 votes. If there are 50 ballots, a name can appear on, at most, all of them.

Section 3 clearly states that the offices should be filled by a majority vote of the Board. Since both the President and VP both resigned, the succession rule cannot be applied, and there is no further order of succession. So, the Board fills the vacant offices for the unexpired remainder of the terms.

It was not rescinded, it was withdrawn. (Rescind only applies to things that have been passed, and never applies to resignations anyway.) And since it was withdrawn before it was accepted, there was then nothing left to accept. It doesn't matter who it was sent to, as it was eventually received by everyone concerned. The resignation was properly withdrawn, and any arguments to the contrary sound like grasping at straws.

The phrases "majority vote" and "2/3 vote" have specific meaning in RONR. They refer, respectively, to a majority or 2/3 of those present and voting. The phrase "of the other Trustees", it seems to me, only serves to clarify in which body the vote is to be taken.There are no indications that I can see in that language that would suggest the vote must be a majority of the entire board membership, for example. It is easy enough to state that clearly, if that is the intent.

The deal-breaker is often in finding a voting mechanism that works, and that can handle the requirements in RONR. And seeking recognition, or when allowable, interrupting one who has the floor, are no easy tasks either.

Given that all the problems you noted, with credentials, voting, etc, will probably be squared or worse, and cubed if you have three sites, I'd vote against it.

No. First, read FAQ #12, which will explain why the motion to Lay on the Table is rarely needed, and hence seldom in order. Second, one is needed. A second, that is. A second is needed, presuming the motion was properly made, and is in order. Third, a majority vote is required to adopt the motion.

Well, yes, but they're talking about changing their rules. In the first place the Bylaws Committee should not have the power to kill the amendment. Committees return matters referred to them, in the original form, along with recommendations for approval, with or without additions, deletions, or other changes, or, in this case a recommendation that the amendment be rejected. They don't have the power to remove the membership's right to consider an amendment because they don't like it. They report to the membership, they don't rule the membership. RONR does indeed address the issue of floor nominations. If the rules in RONR apply, after the Nominating Committee presents its report to the membership, the chair must open nominations from the floor, for each office in the order that they are listed in the bylaws. The process for that is simple, The chair announces, "Nominations are open for the office of President" A member calls out, "I nominate Alan Smithee." The chair responds, "Alan Smithee is nominated. Are there further nominations for the office of President?" And so on.

There is no logic to it and it violates the rules in RONR. A fairly rare but remarkably persistent misconception exists in some organizations that since since abstentions are deemed to acquiesce in the outcome of the vote, that they are somehow an approval of the motion. They are not. They are merely an acceptance of the decision of those who vote, which may be approval or rejection. On the other hand a few organizations claim that since they are not Yes votes, they must be No votes. In fact, abstentions are not votes at all, and should never be called for, counted, or included in deciding the results of a vote. They are simply ignored.

I think the delegates were being instructed, not elected. And I don't think delegates are considered officers.