Gary Novosielski

Yes, I missed that as well. I presumed it was when the next term was about to start. Apparently the idea that he was trying to get back in immediately was too ridiculous for me even to contemplate. And that's a high bar, trust me. Yeah, the only vacancy needing filling at that point would be in the VP spot, if the rules in RONR apply.

Ah, okay, I understood it to mean coinciding with the reorganization of committees. If it's during the year, Mr. Martin's response was apropos. If it is a case of wishing not to confirm one of the president's appointees, the simplest way is, when the confirmation motion comes up, simply voting down that motion and, if necessary, first demanding a Division of the motion if all the names are moved at once.

See this FAQ file: click here. This is permissible under so-called small-board rules. Edited to add: Oh, and the small board rules also do not require seconds at all.

He could certainly be nominated. And even elected if it's okay with a majority of voters. If not, they will presumably vote for someone else. I'd have qualms, for sure. Things would be different if he were removed from office via a discipline process. Duly imposed discipline may include disqualification from holding office, for a certain period, or forever. Not to mention expulsion from the board, or from membership. But since he resigned, which is a request to be excused from a duty, and was therefore presumably excused, there's no penalty.

Yes, I am using Grammarly. I'm finding it more trouble than it's worth, so I'll try it without.

You seem to have it right, except that executive boards, and executive committees have only the powers granted to them in the bylaws, so just stating that they exist is not quite enough. if you want them to be able to act in certain situations, you need to say so in the bylaws.

It seems to me that there is no need to remove any committee chairs. Since the President-Elect appoints all the chairs, all that is necessary is to appoint someone else rather than reappointing the one in question. It looks like the board must approve (or disapprove) of the President-Elect's choices, which would be done with a majority vote.

It is not too difficult to hide the fact that one is abstaining. On a voice vote, all that is required is not to answer when either the Ayes or the Noes are called for. The chair must never call for Abstentions. For a rising vote, do not stand for either affirmative or negative. For a ballot vote, do not turn in a ballot, or turn in a blank ballot. For a roll-call vote, it's more difficult. Normally you would answer Abstain or Present, but you could simply fail to respond when your name is called. If a member wishes to make the reason known, the time to do that is during debate. But it is not required, and nobody should ever ask. If anyone were to ask me, I would probably respond "Nunya bidniss" in a very slightly snippy tone. Very slightly.

You were asked to include "Motions tabled secretarily" as an agenda item? I have no idea what that means. Only two of those are actual words, and of those two, one is ambiguous in this context.

it seems to me that if the bylaws actually say that the IPP "serves for one year" on the board, without further qualification, then there is no reason to believe that the IPP would remain past one year. If the bylaws say "for one year or until the President-Elect is chosen" that would be a different story. It's not possible to try to guess the answer from a paraphrase.

No.

3. The "entire body" consists of 21 members even if some are absent. So for that "majority of the entire membership" threshold, it would take 11 votes to pass, regardless of how many are present. 2. It can be made again at the next meeting. If you have time to give previous notice that it will be moved, the threshold is lowered to a majority vote (of those present and voting, not of the entire body). 1. No need to take any action, since it simply failed. A 9-7 vote is neither two-thirds, nor a majority of the entire membership; it was a "simple" majority, but without previous notice that is insufficient.

Yes, it does. If standing committees are listed in the Bylaws then that list may not be changed except by amending the bylaws. Adding a standing committee, removing one, or splitting one into multiple parts would all require a bylaws amendment, and an attempt to do that with a simple main motion would be out of order. If improperly adopted, such an action would be null and void.

Please enter your new question as a new topic, as suggested at the bottom of the quote you quoted. (I'm confused.)

Not as much trouble as if you had.

The board has absolutely no power to halt counting, or to decide among themselves anything to do with an election. The only body with the authority to decide matters concerning elections is the one that casts the votes. The members who feel they were denied their vote are correct. The will of the general membership was to hold a ballot, and the board can't override that. If the bylaws do not specify how voting is to be done, RONR says that it is in order to elect uncontested offices by acclamation. But the presiding officer must make a statement to that effect at the time, and the minutes would reflect that fact. But if that did not happen, and the general membership called for a ballot, then a ballot must be held.

No, the board cannot vote to violate the bylaws. And boards are not permitted to delegate their powers.

In calling a special meeting, the call must include a specific description of the items of business to be taken up during the meeting, and no items other than those so described may be taken up. I'm not sure that such a description rises to the level of being called an agenda, or needs to. But it must be given.

If state law prohibits the discussion of a topic in executive session, it would be unusual for it not to also prescribe the punishment for violating this provision.

It might be safer to instead refer the matter to a committee of one (or more) with instructions to attempt to contact Ms. Smith and report back later in the meeting. If the committee reports, at this meeting or the next, that it has been unable to contact Ms. Smith, the matter is back in the hands of the assembly. If the committee fails to report by the next meeting, the assembly can discharge it by majority vote and take up the matter again.

The board's minutes are approved or corrected by the board. There is only one board. Those who are members of the board at the time of the approval approve them.

I'm wondering where the board gets the authority to invalidate an election by the membership. It sounds like the board was entirely too involved in the conduct of the election. All these decisions should, in my view, be made by the general membership.

If it is necessary to put something off beyond the next meeting, a proper course of action would be to refer it to a committee, with instructions to do some of the research and report recommendations to the parent assembly, possibly with a scheduled date by which to report.

Without a majority, it is difficult to get things changed. "Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half the people are right more than half the time." --The New Yorker

A motion laid on the table typically doesn't die until the end of the following meeting. But see FAQ #12 to see why the motion to Lay on the Table is usually not in order.