Gary Novosielski

Well--there's yer problem right there.

There are no rules regarding when a group can go into executive session, unless you are a public body subject to Sunshine Laws. It would probably be unwise to list the items that will be discussed in the agenda, unless, again, Sunshine Laws apply, and require it. Minutes are kept of executive session, and should be read and approved in executive session, if there's any possibility they contain confidential information.

The answer would depend on whether 29 is less than 30. Unless we're using alt-math, I think the answer is clear.

They were elected by the membership to three year terms as directors. Nobody was elected secretary by the membership, because the board elects the officers. The membership just decides who will be on he board, and the board decides who will do what job. There is nothing at all unusual about this. It is an extremely common way of doing things. Each year at the organizational meeting, officers are elected by the board. That means all officers, unless your bylaws say otherwise. They do not necessarily have to "give up" those positions. If they have done a good job, it is quite likely that they will be reëlected to do them again. But although they hold their positions as directors for a three year term, they might serve in up to three different other positions during that time--or two, or one; or none.

And if names are listed on the ballot or not, there should always be room for write-ins.

And if there is a ballot vote (unopposed or not) there should be no Yes or No votes. There should be the name of the candidate(s), and a space for write-in votes. Since someone must be elected, a ballot that does not indicate a choice is not a valid vote. In other words, the only way to vote against a candidate is to vote for a different candidate.

That's covered in FAQ10. It says that answers must be found in the provisions in the laws or bylaws that authorize their use, rather than in RONR.

Reprehensible.

It probably meant to repeal it, which would make sense, from a parliamentary point of view, but that's not what it says, so it's just nonsense.

I was ironying.

Why yes, thank you.

And it wouldn't hurt to spruce up the vocabulary a bit. It'll make you sound more knowledgeable, which is never a bad thing. Instead of "someone motioned" say "someone moved". Instead of "the motioner" say "the mover" Motion is a noun and should not be verbed.

What's in a name? That which we call arroz By any other name would taste like rice.

I never intended to suggest otherwise. I only said that the requirements are the same for an amendment in the nature of a substitute. If notice of the original motion was required, a substitute which exceeds the scope of notice is likewise out of order. It is possible to change every word of a motion, yet remain within the scope of the original notice.

You do it as soon as possible, and if you want to make a particular point about how displeased you are that the rule wasn't followed, you move to censure the person responsible. Or else you just scowl at him until he feels bad. Waiting a year or, in your case, two years is just nonsensical, absurd, and not in the least bit unmeaningless, and they should be embarrassed even to suggest it.

No more than any other form of amendment.

That argument would be stronger if the two members' votes could have affected the outcome, but as the vote was unanimous without their hypothetical opposition, that is apparently not the case.

Nothing in RONR would prevent it from canning bothers.

That would allow more members to be appointed, as long as the number of members is never allowed to fall all the way to 12, because the amendment is not in effect till then. I think it is best to have the limit go into effect immediately, but provide that "the provisions limiting committee sizes shall not be construed to require the removal of any committee member currently serving as of the date of adoption of this motion."

If state law dictates that all voting shall be done via ballots mailed to members and returned via the double envelope secret ballot process (presumably the one described in RONR), that would seem to prohibit nomination and in-person voting at the meeting. Are those provisions for floor nominations and in-person voting contained in your bylaws, or in state law? If the latter, there is an apparent possibility that they would supersede the rules in your bylaws.

Presuming you mean a treasurer's report, and not a report on treasures, it is neither approved nor accepted. It is placed on file pending audit. It is the (typically annual) audit report that is approved (or not) by the assembly, possibly accepting recommendations included in it.

To be more specific, RONR says that it is prohibited, unless rules exist in the bylaws to allow it. RONR also says that such the inclusion of such rules in the bylaws to allow it should be avoided. Experience has shown that having co-anything does not help to facilitate operations, except to encourage finger pointing when things fail to get done. If there are more duties than can be handled by a single president and vice president, consider having a 1st, 2nd, and even 3rd vice presidents.

I can't help but wonder at the advisability of calling someone with no duty to preside a "President", and I think this will inevitably come back to bite you somehow. Probably sooner than later. But be that as it may, there is no requirement in RONR for a hired staff position to have a job description. There is a strong argument that common sense requires a job description, but that is beyond the scope of this forum.

Whatever normally happens when a motion to renew a contract fails to get a majority vote. The motion did not "die"; it was rejected.

I think a grandfather clause is exactly what's desired here. The purpose of the amendment is to reduce the size of a committee from its present level without affecting the membership of anyone currently on the committee.