Gary Novosielski

Well, RONR doesn't recommend any in particular, so it's up to the board to set the rules, unless there are rules about it in the bylaws. Check there before taking other action. There are a number of ways I've seen this done. In some municipal bodies, when an ordinance is up for discussion a hearing is held when that item comes up on the agenda. There may be two or three such hearings during the course of a meeting. Those hearings are limited to legislative motions, and only to remarks germane to that one motion. There can be a general hearing near the start of the meeting. It is also possible to schedule two hearings. one at the start and one at the end prior to adjournment. I've seen such a process work well. In that case, comments from non-members (of the board) are limited to items on the agenda for the first hearing and, for the second, any topic that someone wants to bring to the board. What you do not want to do is to encourage people to speak up any time a thought occurs to them, and it will require the chair to be vigilant to prevent this.

Well, if nobody moved to accepted it, then it really doesn't matter who would have had the power to accept it. It wasn't done, so the member may withdraw the resignation.

You seem to be confusing moving and seconding with voting. If one member moved and another member seconded, so far nobody has voted. It is still possible, though unlikely, for all four to vote No on the motion. A motion that does not achieve majority approval fails, so a tie vote rejects the motion. Presuming the Mayor pro tem, after seconding the motion, vote Yes, then the motion simply fails. Nobody gets to vote twice.

Not only is it permissible, it is required that nominations from the floor be called for, if the rules in RONR apply. There is no answer in RONR about proxies, since the rules in RONR prohibit proxies to the greatest extent permitted by law. So their use would have to be provided for in your bylaws or superior rules.

Are you asking who's right? I have no idea. I do question whether an ordinary main motion by the board is sufficient to elect a new office, as a bylaws amendment would presumably be required to create the office. Was that done? So it seems to me not so much a question of whether the minutes were altered (such claims require evidence) but rather a question of whether the position was properly created.

I can see a reasonable argument for doing the swearing in at the beginning of the meeting, and a somewhat less persuasive one to do so at the end of the meeting, but none whatever for doing so after the meeting has adjourned. I do have a notion that the language in the bylaws describing when terms end might be of assistance. For example if the term length is "for n years, or until their successors are elected" then I'd say the new members should be sworn in as soon as the meeting is called to order, since although the new members are not yet installed, they have been elected, so the terms of the "old" board have already ended, and they may not hold an additional meeting. Swearing in the new members would be required in order to hold a meeting.

I suppose it could be done but I've never seen it. Ordinarily it is assumed that committees speak through their reports which are already received by the parent body, placed on file, and preserved. And their recommendations in the form of motions will already be recorded in the minutes. So the only thing left is the committee's internal notes which there is no special need to keep.

If it now a part of the bylaws, all you can do is endeavor to get it removed by passing a new amendment.

If the board wishes to decide to do anything, it requires a motion to pass. That is how decisions are made. If a member wishes to Meet "on the side" with anyone, RONR has nothing to say on the matter. It might be wise not to threaten someone with consequences if they fail to do what you wish. If you think there are grounds to for removal, then begin the process as appropriate. The member will then decide to resign or not.

That's true, but as FAQ#12 says about Lay on the Table, In ordinary societies it is rarely needed, and hence seldom in order. In my modest experience, this observation is vastly understated.

Sadly, that is often the case.

Well, then you're out of luck. If you vote away your power you don't have it any more. Thoughts and prayers, though.

The only possible way the body could have "approved the change" is to have amended the bylaws to grant that power. Is that how it happened, or is this just a bogus power grab?

Committees don't get to make rulings. Bylaws committees recommend changes in the bylaws to the Membership. They don't issue rulings on how the membership must interpret them. Of course someone who wants to do something they shouldn't will always have an excuse for why they should be allowed to do it. That doesn't make them right, it only makes them crooked. The majority rules applies to a majority of the Membershp, not a majority of some committee that has no power. Do your bylaws grant the power to interpret the bylaws to the Bylaws committee? If not, they can't. The membership has the ultimate power to change the bylaws and to interpret them as they currently exist.

The correct term for "secondments" is simply "seconds". But as @Dan Honemann points out, they normally don't belong in the minutes anyway.

Everything depends on what your bylaws say about the office of Secretary or officers in general. Is living in the state a requirement? If so, one would expect the Secretary to resign, effective on some date prior to or coïncident with the anticipated move. If that does not occur, the chair, once the move occurs may declare the position to be vacant. If there is no such qualification for office, and presuming the Secretary will be unwilling or unable to fulfill the duties of the office, then a resignation becomes even more desirable, since removal from office involuntarily would require a trial or other process, possibly found in your bylaws or in Chapter XX. of RONR. Have you suggested to the Secretary the idea of submitting a resignation? In any case you should also check your bylaws to see if there is a procedure for filling mid-term vacancies in this or all offices. Do you have a board? What are its powers? Does it have general authority over the society’s affairs between meetings of the society’s membership, or explicit power to fill vacancies? If so, then with previous notice board members, it may elect someone to be Secretary for the unexpired remainder of the current term, or such other period as the bylaws may provide. If the board does not have such powers, then with previous notice to the membership, a special election can be scheduled to choose this replacement.

Ordinarily I'd agree, but when everyone abstains, it indicates that no one has a preference, and is prepared to acquiesce in the decision arrived at by others. This is different from the typical tie vote, where people take actual positions on both sides, but neither achieves a majority. In the zero-zero case, with nobody on either side, the motion dies not because of a sufficiently strong opposition, but because of something more like neglect.

Well, in some societies the president has the power to appoint people to committees. So it might depend on how this committee chair was appointed or elected in the first place. If it wasn't by the president then he can suggest that the president take his helpful suggestions somewhere else.

Why do they need to be present? It only takes one person to make a nomination. Why would the board have any power over a Membership election? Especially after a recall? Is that in your bylaws?

Well, maybe they're right. Those names had to be nominated somehow to be on the ballot. In your scenario, how did those names get on the ballot?

I don't think anyone said anything remotely approaching that. What was said was that if the quorum was impossible to meet, and if every member of the organization was in attendance, then the rule, though still in effect, would become suspensible. But it would still take a 2/3 vote to suspend it. And one of the first items of business should be to get to work fixing the quorum requirement.

Yes, it's difficult to say that it was "rejected" when nobody voted against it. "Lost" seems, in a way, poetically appropriate though.

If the election is not completed, that does not leave the incumbent in office for another entire term. That is not what that language means at all. It only leaves them in office until the election is completed, which should be done as soon as possible, as we have seen cited several time. "They" would not be having another election, they would be completing the current election, as the bylaws require. And the fact that the bylaws provide for an election at the Convention does not mean if they make it through to the end of the Convention that they are good for another two years. They are not. They remain in office only as long as the election remains incomplete, and the membership has the right to expect and demand that it be completed in short order.

Voting Yes and No is okay for removal but not for elections. Replace the Yes/No with a check box. And for the write in lines, not even that is needed. I wouldn't say Assuming, either, since it seems to, well, to assume a lot. I'd use In the event that it becomes necessary to fill vacancies...

Yes, I thought I had made that distinction, but thank you for clarifying.