George Mervosh

This is exactly my understanding of it as well.

I missed these post (I think)

It's very nice to have Mr. Wynn back!

That is the cleanest general explanation of a substitute I've read. I'll be stealing it.

Nothing in Robert's Rules requires a member to resign from their present office to seek a new one, if that's your question.

J.J. c'mon, man!

This isn't a vacancy and Mr. Brown asked for the exact language for the term of office for the officers.

The ascension is automatic under the rules in RONR. " In case of the resignation or death of the president, the vice-president (if there is only one) or the first vice-president (if there are more than one) automatically becomes president for the unexpired term, unless the bylaws expressly provide otherwise for filling a vacancy in the office of president. " RONR (11th ed.), p. 458 The now vacant office of Vice President will need to be filled via any vacancy filling procedures in the bylaws.

At this point I don't know why the board cannot amend the length of the suspension via the process spelled out on p. 305ff. It can't rescind the suspension since the act of suspending the member has been carried out but amending the unexecuted part (the length) seems proper.

Does the board set the limits for this suspension or is the limit provided for in the bylaws?

No, but if he submits it that way someone who is present at the meeting will need to actually make the motion itself.

He doesn't need to say prior to the election. "When voting for multiple offices by a single ballot, the members are not able to take the result for one office into account when voting for another office. For this reason, a candidate is never deemed elected to more than one office by a single ballot unless the motion or rules governing the election specifically provide for such simultaneous election. When there is no such provision, a candidate who receives a majority for more than one office on a single ballot must, if present, choose which one of the offices he will accept; if he is absent, the assembly decides by vote the office to be assigned to him. The assembly then ballots again to fill the other office(s). (The assembly is free, however, to elect the same person to another office on a subsequent ballot, unless the bylaws prohibit a person from holding both offices simultaneously.) " RONR (11th ed.), p. 440

See FAQ#10 http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#10

" A society has the right to determine who may be present at its meetings and to control its hall while meetings are in progress; but all members have the right to attend except in cases where the bylaws provide for the automatic suspension of members who fall in arrears in payment of their dues, or where the society has, by vote and as a penalty imposed for a specific offense, forbidden attendance. Nonmembers, on the other hand—or a particular nonmember or group of nonmembers—can be excluded at any time from part or all of a meeting of a society, or from all of its meetings. Such exclusion can be effected by a ruling of the chair in cases of disorder, or by the adoption of a rule on the subject, or by an appropriate motion as the need arises—a motion of the latter nature being a question of privilege [page 645] (19). A motion to exclude all nonmembers (except absolutely necessary staff, if any) is often referred to as a motion to "go into executive session" (see 9). " RONR (11th ed.), pp. 644-45. also: "Any nonmembers allowed in the hall during a meeting, as guests of the organization, have no rights with reference to the proceedings (pp. 644–45). " RONR (11th ed.), p. 648 The bottom line is, the assembly decides if non members may attend or speak.

You should raise a point of order at your next meeting with the cited material and not worry about expecting a group of adults to follow the rules they've adopted. If they want co-presidents the bylaws can be amended, although it's a horrible idea.

As Dr. Stackpole mentioned, it's not proper and null and void (p. 251 (a) ) and at the next reading you should raise a point of order. RONR notes, when it comes to interpreting bylaws: "If the bylaws authorize certain things specifically, other things of the same class are thereby prohibited. There is a presumption that nothing has been placed in the bylaws without some reason for it. There can be no valid reason for authorizing certain things to be done that can clearly be done without the authorization of the bylaws, unless the intent is to specify the things of the same class that may be done, all others being prohibited. Thus, where Article IV, Section I of the Sample Bylaws (p. 585) lists certain officers, the election of other officers not named, such as a sergeant-at-arms, is prohibited. " RONR (11th ed.), pp. 589-90 Using the ridiculous argument of the two members, I wouldn't mind being the treasurer of this club. I'd write a check for the bank balance to myself and head to Tahiti because I'm pretty sure the bylaws won't say that I can't.

It was fine to proceed with the meeting but if the assembly is waiting a year to approve minutes, the proper thing to do is to avoid this issue in the future: "When the next regular business session will not be held within a quarterly time interval (see pp. 89–90), and the session does not last longer than one day, or in an organization in which there will be a change or replacement of a portion of the membership, the executive board or a committee appointed for the purpose should be authorized to approve the minutes." RONR (11th ed.), pp. 474-75.

Huh? If it violates a fundamental principle of parliamentary law (which prohibits it from being suspended) that's not a good reason?

Post #3 on that thread makes no mention of absentees.

This might be it. It's in the Advanced Discussion forum. https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/32016-improper-notice-of-special-meeting-given-but-all-members-attend-without-objection/

Even it if was her interpretation of the rule, bylaws often need interpreted and she is always entitled to raise a point of order if she feels a motion has been adopted in conflict with the bylaws, but she does seems to have a pretty solid set of facts here to back her up.

Raise a point of order at your next meeting that the adopted motion is null and void since it conflicts with the bylaws. The chair will rule on your point and if you disagree with the ruling you can appeal from the decision of the chair and the members will decide the matter.

"The only exceptions to the rule that a point of order must be made at the time of the breach arise in connection with breaches that are of a continuing nature, in which case a point of order can be made at any time during the continuance of the breach. Instances of this kind occur when: a) a main motion has been adopted that conflicts with the bylaws (or constitution) of the organization or assembly,* b) a main motion has been adopted that conflicts with a main motion previously adopted and still in force, unless the subsequently adopted motion was adopted by the vote required to rescind or amend the previously adopted motion, c) any action has been taken in violation of applicable procedural rules prescribed by federal, state, or local law, d) any action has been taken in violation of a fundamental principle of parliamentary law (p. 263), or e) any action has been taken in violation of a rule protecting absentees, a rule in the bylaws requiring a vote to be taken by ballot, or a rule protecting a basic right of an individual member (pp. 263–64). In all such cases, it is never too late to raise a point of order since any action so taken is null and void. " RONR (11th ed.), p. 251

With so few facts I'm for flipping a coin.

Not under the rules in RONR. "It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that the right to vote is limited to the members of an organization who are actually present at the time the vote is taken in a regular or properly called meeting, although it should be noted that a member need not be present when the question is put. Exceptions to this rule must be expressly stated in the bylaws." RONR (11th ed.), p. 423