Quietstorm

Thanks for the response. Can you tell me where I can find that in RONR?

Our bylaws read: "Any Member seeking a constitutional office must be a Member of the Association for 1 year and must notify the Election Officer in writing (via Letter of Intent) no less than sixty days before the election , stating the position he/she intends to seek and the Election Offiers must certify, through the records of the Financial Officers, that said member has been "financial" at least ninety days prior to filing to run for said office.

During our last election there was one "open" position was available and a Members name was written in by two voting members. Some on the Board and Executive Committee, and one our attorneys argued that the "write-in" was not valied because of the language above.

I reminded them that in our bylaws it clearly states that we are also"governed by Robert's Rules of Order and I stated to them that "A write-in candidate is one in an election whose name does not appear on the ballot, but for whom voters may vote nonetheless by writing in the persons name.

There is nothing in our bylaws that either permit nor prohibit write-ins. Am I missing something? Am I correct in my interpretation that the write-in is valid?

Thanks so much. As I suspected. Now it's a matter of getting folks on-board....Have a good day.

Good day everyone.  I have a question of bylaws. Some members of our organization attempted to "fast track" proposed changes in our current bylaws. They claimed that at a regular "General membership" meeting (I unfortunately was unable to attend) they (allegedly) suspended the meeting and then called for a "Special Meeting" to discuss and vote on the proposed changes. They say a vote was taken "in favor" of the proposed changes. According to what's been told, they then suspended the "Special meeting" and went back into the regular "General Membership" meeting. Our bylaws state that in order to change our bylaws  1. "The President may order a special meeting of Association at any time and shall do so at the request of any ten members in good standing, thereafter the Recording Secretary shall notify the membership stating the purpose and no other order of  business shall be addressed at that special meeting", only that matter of issue shall be discussed. may be called for that specific purpose.  My question is: Does the fact that there are no minutes from that meeting "anywhere" to be found and what's stated above nullify the alleged ratification of the proposed bylaws?  Hope it's not too confusing.  Thanks.

Thanks so much, Tom.  Much appreciated.

Thank you all for you responses.  A couple of us on the Board know that this individual has, in the past, attempted to divide the organization (older members from younger members) in order to try and have those who may side with him "control" things. He tried the same thing with another organization 2 years ago and is no longer a member of that organization. In other words he and two current members of the Board do not have good intentions. He has already been reaching out to some older members, in the current organization, and is spreading his poison once again. There are those of us who know full well "It is personal" with him.  The other thing is that we all know that issues discussed at our Board meetings are supposed to be confidential. So it appears that unless/until we can prove he is discussing Board issues "outside" we are stuck with him, unless we go into Executive Session".  One last question: If there was nothing in our bylaws under "Board of Directors Meetings" that mentions anything about "visitors or non-members" attending Board meetings, would we then be able to refer to RONR on the matter? Thanks again.

Our bylaws state that a non-member may attend Board meetings. However, there is one member who has been attending the Board meetings on a regular basis.  There is/has been no specific purpose for his attendance (he has been at all of the Board meetings so far). At our last meeting I made the chairman aware of this and also made him aware that he (chairman) should, introduce the guest, and state the purpose for the guest attending which he (chairman) has not done as there appears there is no specific purpose. I have also made the chairman aware that at a Board meeting, non-members have no rights and  if they are granted permission to attend, that is all they have been granted permission to do. The chairman has, on one occasion, allowed this guy to comment and ask a question - which I strongly objected to. Are there any rights for this non-member to attend, allegedly, as "simply an observer"?  Thanks.

Thanks for the response.  In the meantime is there anything in Robert's Rules that may directly address "past practice".  Thanks again

Good day. Hope this will not be too confusing. Our organization has, over the past 6 years, has allowed for a person from our "sister organization" of retired members to be appointed to our Board. It states in our bylaws that"one of the Directors shall be elected from the Retired membership"...At the time of this addition to our bylaws it was "understood" by all that the "Retired membership" meant our sister organization. Now there are some who are not happy with that interpretation and are attempting to argue that there should be "a special election only for retirees (who are not members of our sister organization) but retired members of our main organization. Just an FYI, we recently had elections for offices and notices along with letters of intent were mailed to ALL members, including the aforementioned retirees (who are not members of our sister organization) but retired members of our main organization). Only ONE submitted their letter of intent. 1.  There is nothing in our bylaws relative to a special election "unless there are vacancies that must be filled within 90 days after the election". We have 5 one year seats, 2 two year seats, one 3 year seat, and one 2 year seat reserved for a past President, if he/she did not run (again) or win the new election. Our bylaws state the Board is to be comprised of 9 seats (the tenth from the Retired members (sister organization)  2.  Based upon the "past practice" can I fight this attempt of the few who are attempting to change things for their own personal gain?  Thanks in advance.