Kim Goldsworthy

What do you mean, "not yet vacant"? Q. If there is no vacancy, then what is the president doing? *** If your president is empowered to appoint that given specific office, then your president is free to appoint himself. -- When the seat is vacant. If your president is not empowered to appoint that given specific office, then your question is moot. *** Q. Are you asking ,"Do presidents have the power to appoint, in general?" -- The answer is "No", with Robert's Rules of Order giving one rare exception.

If you have bylaws, then I assume that your bylaws have a VACANCY provision in those bylaws. Q. What is the bylaws' vacancy-filling rule?

>> C. There has never been literature sent with ballots in the past. Since there has never been literature sent with ballots in the past, then the committee should not break a long-standing tradition (without authority). *** >> B. Candidates were told that bios would be available to financial members at the Club prior to the elections; and they had option to include their bio with that literature, no mention was made about mailing out. Since the "financial members" (?) have been told, ". . . biographies would be available at the Club . . .", then the committee should obey that instruction, and keep bios at the Club, for voluntary inspection by financial members. The committee should not be re-inventing election rules, at the last moment, and risk biasing the election.

It is FALSE. There is nothing in Robert's Rules of Order which automatically makes a board member (or general member) recused. There is nothing in Robert's Rules of Order which implies that a party who sits on a board must resign due to a family member being arrested (or being under investigation).

You are asking, "Who is responsible for this error?" I thought you were going to ask, "Does the election stand?" *** Under Robert's Rules of Order, the election stands. "An error in calculation" does not overturn "the prevailing side per the chair's announcement." The reason is, the vote threshold is in the nature of a rule of order. And rules of order (with some fundamental-principle exceptions) are suspendable rules, and create no continuing breach when violated.

Please specify which election you are referring to. Q. Are you referring to the election which is _______: (a.) the act of filling a vacancy (which implies the elected party will no longer be in office come the Annual Meeting). (b.) the act of holding an election at the normal cycle (which implies the vacancy-filling person risks losing his temporary title)? *** When the Annual Meeting comes, • if the vacated position would not normally be due up for election, • nonetheless, despite the ideal goal of staggered terms (here, one third of the officers per cycle), the organization must nonetheless elect someone to fill the re-vacant (!) seat. (Although we know who the likely party is who will be elected again.) When the organization does do its electing on the Annual Meeting day, the elected party for that seat does not "begin" a three-year term of office, but instead the elected party will be fulfilling an existing term of office. The customized rule says, "Mr. Lucky does not serve a full term, but is ousted on the day of the Annual Election". But the defined TERM OF OFFICE does not change. Whoever is elected on ANNUAL MEETING DAY (old Mr Lucky or a new Mr. Lucky) to fulfill the incomplete 3-year seat, will be fulfilling a clock-ticking, ongoing, term of office. -- Note that there is no re-setting of the clock for a new term of office for this electee. The seat is a 3-year term, and the term for this seat has not yet cycled through.

Consider: If, by way of honoring said person, a board were to elect the President of the United States, or elect the city Mayor, as an officer, then the president or the mayor still would not be under the authority of the society. And that principle would hold if the board were to elect an ordinary (non-title-holding) citizen.

>> I view it as the appointed serves until the Annual Meeting -- and then is placed on the ballot to serve a full term. The rule says "annual meeting". So the rule must mean that something begins and/or ends at an annual meeting. The rule could have said, ". . . finish the term . . .". But it did not. The replacement party is not to finish any term. The rule does not allow for anything beyond an annual meeting. And "annual" implies "not greater than one year".

Death; resignation; medical coma; criminal arrest -- these are things which can happen to your "founders". And if you need to scramble and appoint a living person (or un-imprisoned person, etc.), you would have to amend your bylaws to make such an adjustment. Q. If the person whose name is embedded into your bylaws were to suddenly die, then do you want no one "in charge of committees" until you amend the bylaws? Q. Wouldn't it be easier to give a generic title to said persons, and use the title in the bylaws? -- so that you don't have to amend your bylaws upon every death/resignation?

You prefer the term "interim treasurer"? I do not.

>> What is this "Pro Tem Treasurer" you speak of? If the treasurer dies, and if no election is possible before bills are due, then, nonetheless, the organization is still obligated to pay its bills, and the organization is still free to pay its vendors, even if no elected treasurer is in place. In such a case, the organization will need a place-holder party to write the checks, until a proper election can be held to fill the vacancy of treasurer. Who is this place-holder party? -- It would be a pro tem treasurer. -- A person who is authorized to pay the bills of the organization until the vacancy is filled. Remember, some large organizations can take months to fill a vacancy. In those months, the bills which are due in 21-28 days will risk becoming overdue.

In theory if 100% of your elected officers were to die simultaneously, the organization would still continue. You would put in place: • A pro tem chair. • A pro tem secretary. • a pro tem treasurer. You don't automatically dissolve as an organization, if that is what you feared.

Q. What kind of document is your "addendum"? I've never heard of anybody doing what you are describing. So maybe you are using a term in an unusual way. (The word "addendum" does not appear within the 700+ pages of the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised.) E.g: • You are adding a report, which was not written or not available at the meeting hour? • You are adding supporting documentation? • You are adding corrections? There is a fair chance that the document you intend to add is not properly put into one's minutes. So you might be asking "How do I execute this non-Robertian action in the best way?" I doubt that there is a "best way" to violate the recommendations of Robert's Rules of Order.

Remember, the minutes do not belong to YOU. Minutes belong to the ORGANIZATION. It is up to the organization to dispose of old minutes (if at all), per an adopted resolution, instructing the appropriate party how to do the destruction. *** I am glad you have electronic copies of everything. However, if your electronic copies are: (a.) on 1.44 MB floppy disks (b.) on a Betamax video tape (c.) IBM computer punch cards (d.) in Word Perfect files . . . then consider that your electronic versions may be inaccessible to future officers. *** Consider that, if you were to die tomorrow, then how shall the organization retrieve their minutes of old?

As you know, debate/reasoning is not to be included in the minutes. However, for those organizations which do include debate/reasoning in their minutes, then the minutes should continue to reflect those bad, erroneous debates and reasons. Without those bad debates/reasons, then the minutes of the next meeting will not have a tie to what-is-being-corrected. *** The next meeting meeting's minutes will say, for example: • The budget was off by a factor of ten. -- 20,000, not 2,000. • There is no matching fund. That was an assumption which proved to be unfounded. (etc.) *** And, again, 99% of such problems would be avoided if organizations followed the recommendation of The Book, i.e., to not include "commentary", "opinion", or "loosely-formed ideas" in one's minutes.

A1.) The latter. Members can nominate from the floor, mere seconds before conducting the vote. There is no need to pre-nominate or to early-nominate. A2.) No. The Book recommend that you follow BYLAWS ORDER. That is, top down. Your bylaws probably mention the president as the first office mentioned in your bylaws. So, do the office of president, first. Once the offcers are done, then you conduct elections for the boards and/or committees.

Q. What do you mean by "work" in "How would Robert's Rules of Order 'work'"? When the branches meet in their general membership meetings, there certainly will be a presiding officer, even if not titled "chair", and there certainly will be a secretary, even if not titled "secretary". The Book says that all you need is two meeting officers to run a meeting. There is no need, inside a meeting, for a vice-anything. Q. What do you need "working" out of Robert's Rules of Order for your branches? Do you not have a contact person? Do you not have a party responsible for dues or for rosters?

Analogy. If I were a secretary-treasurer (a defined officer position in the bylaws), and if I chose to . . .: (a.) have my aunt do the typing of minutes, (b.) have my uncle do the spreadsheet for the budget, (c.) have my sister do the slides/projections for my visual aid presentation, (d.) have my brother type set the flyers, rosters, agendas, and program booklets, . . . then there is still only one officer (me). Despite my uncle holding the title of "Lord High Executioner" and my aunt bearing the title, "Grand Poo-Bah", neither my uncle nor my aunt are elected, bylaws-defined, fixed-term-of-office officers in my organization.

Don't set a precedent which will encourage your future disruptors: "If I can raise a ruckus, then I can trigger an adjournment of this meeting." Just the opposite. Recess just long enough to quell the disruption. Then continue the meeting. Do not allow a single individual to mess up a meeting for the other 99% of the members present.

Don't do that. You don't want to taint the "paper trail" from (a.) error, to (b.) correction. The minutes should contain what transpired in that meeting, even if there were errors. By allowing a solid paper trail, that will allow a future reader of the minutes (the two sets) to see that there was a rationale behind the sudden change of heart.

Both #a and #b are correct. • You may move a motion which naturally arises out of a committee report or an officer's report. • You may move a motion under "new business". Your president erred when your president assumed that "no motions are allowed following a report from an officer/committee." *** You also would have been correct if the new motion had been explicitly postponed to the New Business section of the meeting. While you could entertain the motion after a report, you don't have to. The motion could be moved, seconded, debated, and then postponed. No problem.

Robert's Rules of Order does not contain any kind of "sunshine law" (public access to a government body's meeting). So, there won't be an answer within the 700+ page of the current edition. You state likely has an applicable sunshine law. So consult an expert of your state laws.

Your chair erred. In fact, it is quite the opposite, as Robert's Rules says that all you need is the candidate's consent. His presence is not required. See page 444.

"Legal"? If the state (or whatever government) imposes a law establishing a vote threshold on a body, then you cannot suspend the rules, and you cannot lower the vote threshold, in any way, shape, or form. If the organization's own constitution/bylaws imposes a vote threshold on one of its boards or committees, then the rule is in the nature of a rule of order and is suspendable. So, bottom line, I'd like read the rule in context. It is such an usual threshold. And I'd like to know the body who imposed the rule, and the body to which the rule applies.

A powerless body can be considered to be an unauthorized committee. Except that, here, per the original poster, this EC body is authorized (to exist, and therefore, to meet). So, this EC body has all the powers of the powerless -- i.e., the powers of a committee. -- A committee without a charge (i.e., without instruction, without a task).