Gary Novosielski

Or just ask a third time, and see if the answer changes. 🙂

Thanks. I wish we could have witnessed the mic drop.

If you mean there is a vacancy in the office of VP, it should be filled as soon as possible. If the VP is simply skipping meetings, the impact would be minimal, but it's up to the assembly whether it rises to a level of concern.

Except to preside, when the president does not, for whatever reason.

Let's see if I have this straight. At the first monthly meeting, where the VP presided, the minutes of the previous meeting (call it the zeroth meeting) were read. Those draft minutes would have been signed by the secretary. Corrections were agreed to. After approval, the secretary would write the word Approved and the date, and initial it. It is not necessary to have anyone else sign it, but if it's the custom to have the presiding officer sign the approved copy, then the VP would have signed it. At the second meeting, the secretary would read the minutes of the first meeting, which would not note any corrections. It would simply have the entry: The minutes of the <date of the zeroth> meeting were read and approved with corrections. The corrections themselves would have been incorporated into the minutes of the zeroth meeting, to which they applied. When the minutes of the first meeting are approved, they are dated as Approved, initialed by the secretary and, if desired, signed by whoever was presiding at the time. However, when minutes are approved as corrected, as was the case with the minutes of the zeroth meeting, things may change. We are told that the secretary should prepare a fully corrected version and distribute copies to the members as well as placing it in the minute book. [RONR (12th ed.) 48:14] Presumably this version would be dated Approved and initialed before distributing and filing it, but it would make less sense to chase down the presiding officer to sign them. But if that's what you want, you're free to do so, and have whoever was presiding (the VP in this case) sign the corrected approved copy before filing. But this process could take place even outside the context of a meeting, or perhaps not at all.

The airlines are going to want to have a word with those folks.

May it ever be so. But suppose it had only been crafted as carefully as in my hypothetical example which, experience has shown, is the more realistic expectation. In drafting the bylaws, the size of the board is typically set; nothing is said about multiple offices because nobody thought of it; as a result, RONR allows it; and Bob's your auntie.

Well, it can't happen if those multiple seats all have the same title, e.g., Director, and are voted by multiple votes in a single section of the ballot. Once elected to one of those seats, you can't run for another one. And if the terms are staggered, hopping from one Director's chair to another vacates the chair departed from. And even in the case of individual single offices, if someone is duly elected to more than one of them, it does not mean that they have multiple seats on the board. They have a single seat but two hats, and more duties.

If the objection was sustained, fewer than one third of the voters favored consideration of the question. But if Reconsider passes, that means that a majority of the voters now favor consideration. If reconsideration passes, we proceed directly to consider the question, since a majority is greater than one third.

Okay, hypothetically, we run across bylaws that specify a seven-member board, comprising a president, vice president, secretary, treasurer, and three directors. There is no explicit prohibition against someone holding multiple offices, which RONR tells us is then permitted. All offices are elected directly by the membership, on individual ballots for the first four offices, and one ballot for the three identical director seats. Is this an implicit contradiction? It seems not to violate any rule in RONR. Should we assume that the fixed board size effectively prohibits multiple-office holding? In all cases? Only among the identical director seats? Only among the first four offices? Between the two sets?

Yes. Well, technically he be withdrawing his resignation. Rescission applies to something already adopted, and resignations, once adopted cannon be rescinded. But terminology aside, yes, he can change his mind if he does it fast enough.

I agree, if we are talking about board members with essentially identical seats. It does not make sense for one person to hold two director seats, and yet hold only one vote. In this case, it is clear that there is one director seat vacant. It is not unheard of for someone in the middle of a two-year director term to run for a newly beginning two-year director term. In that case, a successful election means the first seat is vacated. But if one person person is elected as both Secretary and Treasurer on two distinct ballots, and the bylaws do not prohibit multiple-office holding, and do provide that the board comprises those two offices among others, then the person is on the board, has the duties of both offices, and has one vote. The number of people on the board is reduced by one, hopefully not creating a quorum problem, and the sun comes up in the morning.

No, there is not. They would definitely remain in their first position for the normal length of that term. As you can see from the other responses, it becomes more complicated if they win the second office. They may be automatically removed from the first one, or if elected to two offices in one election, may have to choose between them, or may actually serve wearing two hats, all depending on the rules in the bylaws, and how they apply to the specific structure and detailed situation that exists in that particular society.

So If it's true that your bylaws say nothing about assessments, then neither the executive board nor the membership, by an ordinary main motion, may assess any additional payments. The only way to do so would be to follow the procedure contained in your bylaws for their own amendment, and include a provision to enable such assessments by a process that would be spelled out..

I don't know what that accomplishes besides sowing confusion about what the word "member" means. For example, ex-officio members do have the right to vote, make motions and enter into debate, and you're assuming these would not, so it looks like there's already some confusion about what ex-officio means. Terminology is hard enough to manage in good weather. (Sorry if there's repetition, this was stuck in the outbox.)

I'd agree, with one amendment: Strike adopt and insert reject. 🙂

You are missing the word automatically. Simply naming a committee does not automatically refer anything to it at all.

The chair cannot create special committees of the board. The board can, by majority vote, using the motion to Commit. See RONR (12th ed.) §13. Commit or Refer The motion to Ratify would not be in order. That's used to make valid some action taken without proper authority, which is not what's happening here. The board is simply voting to refer the motion that is being discussed to a committee for further study and presumably recommendations. But check your bylaws. Some organizations authorize certain individuals to establish committees. Note that if the bylaws give the president the right to appoint committees, that does not imply he can establish new ones, but rather to name the members of committees established by normal means,.

No. The qualifications for board membership must be in the bylaws, and if there are to be certain kinds of members who do not have the right to vote, that must also be in the bylaws.

Presuming the election has not yet taken place, you should contact the nominating committee and ask them to pick someone else.

it's the National Organization of Parliamentary Experts: NOPE 😑

There's something confusing about the way this is phrased. Let's try to get some terminology straight. Surely the general membership has a vote, or how could they vote for the elected voting members? And presumably they vote for officers too. It sounds to me like we're talking about two different bodies, the General Membership, and a body made up of the reps elected by the rank and file. It might be called the Rep Council or some other name, but its members are the elected reps. This would typically be a separate body, and would hold its own regular meetings on its own schedule., such as monthly. The general membership might meet infrequently, perhaps only annually. But if you're organized under the rules of RONR, these are two separate bodies, even though some people will be members of both, and the president might be president of both, etc. It's also possible that at these "council" meetings, general membership members would be allowed to attend, but not vote. That would still mean this is a meeting of the "council" not of the general membership. They cant vote because they're not members (of the "council"). Special meetings are meetings that do not occur on a regular basis. They are called for one or more specific reasons. The rules about who can call special meetings, and how, are in your bylaws. If you have different bodies as mentioned above, you might have special meetings of one, or the other, from time to time. For example, you might call a special meeting of the Membership if it's time to ratify a contract. According to the rules in RONR, members have the right to vote at meetings of a body of which they are a member, and can't vote at meetings of bodies of which they are not a member, even if they are allowed, by rule or custom, to attend them. Does any of this make sense in your situation? And do you have a copy of your bylaws that you can refer to? I used to be in leadership at a local teacher's union, so some of this should sound familiar to you. Also, what is your role in this? General member? Elected Rep? Officer? Prospective member?

But it makes a pretty goog ham callsign (almost) =Gary AK2QJ

I think that whoever "we" is needs some authorization to deprive delegates of their voting rights and so far there has been no mention of any. The Constitution is probably silent on whether I can charge admission to your convention. Does that mean I am allowed to do it? If the Constitution is silent, you fall back on the rules in your parliamentary authority (presumably RONR since you are here.) And that says that convention rules are set by the Rules Committee. But the rules have to be approved by the Convention, assembled. Is that who you meant by "we"?

Yes. Very much like a marginal note: Here's how to interpret this provision.