Gary Novosielski

Not according to RONR. It is common sense to wait and see how the election turns out before making any subsequent decisions. However, you need to be prepared for the fact that a VP vacancy might or might not occur as a result of that election. It's a little unusual for those two terms not to run concurrently, but if you check your rules in advance you can know better how to proceed in the event this does happen.

As do I, which may be worth a bit more, as it seems to occur with slightly lower frequency. 😇 Or would that make it worth less? I dunno. But he's quite right. The specific rule for presidential succession should supersede the general rule for term limits. As long as everybody meets the qualifications for being elected to the office they hold, mid-term hot swaps should not create a bylegal crisis. I think it's worth noting that the original question seemed to be looking to RONR for a solution to conflicting bylaws. The only real answer is to write them better to begin with. Writing and editing bylaws to remove all conflicts and ambiguities is a practical example of Hofstadter's Law, which states: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law."

No. There is no such thing as an "abstention vote". When you abstain, voting is what you are abstaining from doing. Abstentions should be neither called for, nor counted. And anyone who remains silent has abstained, just as surely as if they had stated "I abstain".

I'm surprised no one has suggested the use of a Point of Order. If a person who is not the IPP is attending the meeting as if a member when in fact that is not the case, that is a breach of the rules, and a Point of Order to that effect should be well taken. Be prepared to raise an Appeal if the chair rules in a manner less than optimal. [See RONR (12th ed.) §23, 24]

Tags indeed.

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

According to the constitution, the immediate past present shall be on the board. That's clear and unambiguous. The only question is, who is the immediate past president. That would be the person who was president just before the current president became president. Is the VP who succeeded (when the former president was expelled) still president now? If, as you say, the immediate past president, who was removed from office, is really the immediate past president, then he is back in office ex officio. This is why I question the wisdom of having such a rule. But if the former VP was replaced by a new president, then the former VP would seem to be the IPP. Does this person hold any office now?

Not really, since I reject the notion that a substitute would be in order.

Nah.

It's what they call a distinction without a difference. And besides, it's not in order in the first place. Okay, then they can issue a minority report. Does anything compel the convention to consider it? And even if they do, they can't accept the minority report as a substitute, because they can't amend the committee report unless it is pending.

That's a bit confusing. After the new officers are elected, there is no more business in the election, but any other business can be conducted that would otherwise be in order. Edited to add: But things might be different if the election was being held at a special meeting called for that purpose alone. That would be somewhat uncommon. In the usual case, the election is one item of business in a meeting (often the Annual General Meeting) at which other business is in order.

I agree on the grounds that the specific rule trumps the general rule. And as a practical matter, if there are genuine challenges to the seating of particular delegates, and the intent is to deal with these disputes on their merit, it is going to be more fruitful to work through them one delegation at a time. Even if proposing an amendment in the nature of a substitute were allowed (hypothetically) a scattergun approach to a dozen different delegates in several different delegations is quite likely to be voted down anyway, since nearly everyone will find something in there to dislike. So considering a wide ranging substitute is likely to be a large waste of time.

I suspect so. I should not have skipped that second cup of coffee. Thanks. Now to figure out how to move it.

n/a

Yes, and my original post that Josh replied to occurred prior to Josh's reply. That's how time works. And my reply to him was about my thinking as it had occurred even earlier than my original post, because that's how thought works. I admit to hitting Quote on his message because his was the message I wanted to reply to. I know, right? Yes, another post came in between those. But I don't think it can be said that all was explained therein. Still, to help in the goal of reducing confusing responses, this will be my last on the subject. If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

Perhaps that means voting cannot be by secret ballot, since the not-unmeaningless phrase can't be declared true.

They say votes are "held at a meeting". Does that not mean held at a meeting?

That's fine advice, except that post occurred after my reply and Josh's reply to my reply, so without a time machine it's difficult to implement. Besides, that sentence was intended to express a general rule, not a specific reference to this thread. But thanks for your input. I can't tell you how much I appreciate it. 😇

No argument there! In fact, that was going to be my response originally but it occurred to me that these are monthly regular meetings associated with an HOA and, though my knowledge of the internal workings of HOAs is mercifully limited, this sounds a lot like the frequency of a typical board meeting. And it's common that general members can attend those, which can give the impression (incorrectly) that there exists some kind of similar blending in the other direction. In either case, it is important to distinguish exactly what body is in session in order to determine what should be happening.

If the bylaws explicitly say that the voting must take place at a meeting, then that is very likely what they mean.

The Nays are correct. The whole thing was done improperly, and dissention is much more likely when things are not done properly. But at this point, there's nothing that can be done. This shows the importance of striving to do things right to begin with.

This is not in accordance with the rules in RONR. I suspect that if you check further, you will find that these are in fact board meetings, which the general membership is permitted to attend and observe.

Well, not specifically for that reason, but yes, a motion can be rescinded, as long as it has not already been carried out. For instance, you can't un-chop-down the old pear tree. The motion to Rescind requires a second; is debatable and amendable; and requires for passage: a two-thirds vote; or a majority vote if previous notice was given; or a majority of the entire membership; ...any of which will suffice. See [RONR (12th ed.) §35]

What do the bylaws say about filling vacancies?

They never do. When you abstain, voting is what you are abstaining from doing. There is no such thing as an abstention vote. You either vote, or you abstain from voting. You can abstain by: Remaining quiet when the chair asks "Those in favor/opposed?" Remaining seated during a rising vote. Never raising your hand during a show of hands. Not answering when your name is called during a roll-call vote. Answering "Abstain" or "Present" during a roll-call vote. Turning in a ballot with Abstain written on it. Turning in a ballot with something else written on it which fails to indicate a preference. Turning in a ballot with nothing written on it. Not turning in a ballot at all. And there may be others, but basically it is any response other than Yes or No, or in the case of an election other, than a candidate.