Mr. Coffee

Thanks! 

Richard and Josh, If an annual meeting is inquorate, do you think that affects its power to authorize another body to approve its minutes? 

Yes. Until next time. Thanks very much. 

Thank you all for the thoughtful analyses. 

One would think so, but there is not one, unless it was meant to be assumed that the board issued the notice. 

As their parliamentarian, my answer would be that to them? 

The bylaw article on Amendments reads, "These bylaws may be amended at the Annual Meeting by a two-thirds vote of the membership present and voting provided that notice of the proposed change has been provided to the Executive Board at least 60 days prior to the Annual meeting and the members notified of the proposed change at least 30 days prior to the Annual Meeting."

Can the board waive the 60 day notice to itself? If so, can it be by majority vote or would it need to be unanimous? 

Thanks.

Or the 18th amendment:

Quote

1: After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

2: The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

3: This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

And isn't that in the 22nd amendment a grandfather clause rather than a delaying action?

Under Robert's, the unopposed candidate wins the office by acclamation.

You can add to your bylaws a provision that would allow an up-or-down vote on an unopposed candidate, but it's questionable whether that would be wise. For one thing, it raises the question of what happens if "no" wins. Your bylaw would need to cover that.

One might also wonder why there is not a "no" (or "none of the above") option when there are two or more candidates. Why should an unopposed candidate have to run against "no," when opposed candidates have to run against only each other?

Under Robert's, when a person abstains from a vote, they do not announce that they abstain, they do nothing.

I believe that your distinction between "abstaining" and "not participating" is a false dichotomy. Not partipating (in the vote) is what abstaining is.