Dan Honemann

Interesting way to put it.

If the bylaws say that the ballots must be sent between 40-55 days ahead of the annual meeting, and must arrive at the teller at least 10 days before the annual meeting, then that's that. In other words, the answer to both of your questions is no.

Why is it limited to the person most recently holding the office of president prior to the current incumbent?

Oh, I just can't wait.

The short answer to your question is no, you can't suspend the rules which prohibit electronic meetings without bylaw authorization.

When draft minutes are presented for approval, corrections to them may be proffered and agreed to. They may be amended only after they have already been approved.

No. Nominations are debatable only while the floor is open for nominations.

Huh?

The point is that the existence of the proviso would appear to indicate that the bylaws sought to be revised require a ballot vote.

These facts are rather skimpy, but it would appear that a ballot vote will have to be taken.

"If a motion to Reconsider that involves a main motion cannot be taken up when it is made, then as long as its suspending effect lasts it can be called up and acted upon during any regular meeting, or any special meeting called for that purpose, at any time that no question is pending and no other member has the floor." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 323, ll. 9-15. emphasis supplied.)

The moderators are not equipped to deal with conversations in languages other than English, and as a consequence, posters are requested to please post all messages in English only. Messages posted in anything other than English will shortly be deleted.

Yes, a motion to go out of executive session requires a majority vote for its adoption (although such questions are usually handled by unanimous consent).

I'll note again that RONR does say, on pages 476-77, that reports of officers "should generally conform to the rules as to form ... that govern committee reports", which, by my standards, means that officers' reports should be in writing.

In order to answer your question in any meaningful way it will be necessary, at the very least, to know exactly what motion was adopted. I doubt that it was a motion "to expand our building".

But that quote from In Brief deals with what is or is not to be included in the minutes, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the question as to whether or not reports should be in writing. I can't imagine how one might conclude from it that "committee reports, like officer's reports, may routinely be given orally", and yes, it means what it says about what should and what should not be included in the minutes.

In Brief tells us that: The minutes do not include the contents of the reports of officers or committees, except as may be necessary to cover motions arising out of them. An example of how the minutes should describe reports without motions is: "Reports were given by President Darian Will, Vice-President Roxana Arthur, Secretary Jolan Davis, Treasurer Jose Rhinehart, and Karen Wilson, Chairman, on behalf of the Education Committee." An example of how the minutes should treat a report with a motion is: "Dennis McAuliffe, reporting on behalf of the Membership Committee, moved ‘that Stacie Johnson be admitted to membership in the Society.'" What false impression of how committee reports are treated do you glean from this?

RONR does say, on pages 476-77, that reports of officers "should generally conform to the rules as to form ... that govern committee reports", which, by my standards, means that officers' reports should be in writing.

Nonsense.

Okay, instead of "Whereas" use "Since". People may think it a bit weird, but it won't bother me any. 😀

We are told that this is a three person board. Two of these members are the President and the Vice-President; the third is the Secretary-Treasurer, who has failed to submit minutes of the last four meetings of the Board. I'm quite sure that there is nothing in RONR which would prevent the President and Vice-President, under circumstances such as this, from preparing and approving minutes of the last four meetings.

No. Nothing further is required since the minutes have already been approved.

John Stackpole is someone I have known and greatly admired for a long time, going all the way back to my days of activity in Maryland's Association of Parliamentarians. In the very early days of this Forum when, as its only active Moderator, I tended to be overly strict in enforcing its rules relating to posts deemed to be irrelevant, erroneous or misleading, John took to warning posters about what he called the "Wrath of Dan." As a consequence, he's the guy responsible for that thing (whatever it's called) that appears at the bottom of all of my posts. He will, indeed, be sorely missed, and richly deserves his place in this Forum's Hall of Fame.

Proof exceeding two digits is unlikely during meetings of the 2FP, but we strive to come as close as we can.

Or the assembly can simply adjourn.