George Mervosh

At first blush it seems that a ballot vote is required given all of the references to one. "If the bylaws require the election of officers to be by ballot and there is only one nominee for an office, the ballot must nevertheless be taken for that office unless the bylaws provide for an exception in such a case. In the absence of the latter provision, members still have the right, on the ballot, to cast "write-in votes" for other eligible persons. " RONR (11th ed.), pp. 441-442. Make sure there's a space for a write in.

Ok that's fine. The initial response you received is correct. I was just curious about the meeting date.

Is the time for your regular yearly membership meeting established by the bylaws?

I guess I'm the only one who thinks it sounds like a meeting but as Mr. Katz says you can check with an attorney about any legal questions.

RONR is silent on this. I personally see no reason for it. (I first read this title as "Prinicipal's Office" and thought back to the time or ten I visited it...... )

I don't know, I didn't notice that, but my question was more generic even though helping Mr. Frederick is what the point of this thread is.

I do too, but will a 2/3 vote cut it or will it be the same vote that is required to adopt a special rule of order? I only ask because p. 406 mentions "by virtue of a special rule previously adopted"?

Perhaps this passage may be of help: "A plurality vote is the largest number of votes to be given any candidate or proposition when three or more choices are possible; the candidate or proposition receiving the largest number of votes has a plurality. A plurality that is not a majority never chooses a proposition or elects anyone to office except by virtue of a special rule previously adopted. If such a rule is to apply to the election of officers, it must be prescribed in the bylaws. A rule that a plurality shall elect is unlikely to be in the best interests of the average organization. In an international or national society where the election is conducted by mail ballot, a plurality is sometimes allowed to elect officers, with a view to avoiding the delay and extra expense that would result from additional balloting under these conditions. A better method in such cases is for the bylaws to prescribe some form of preferential voting (see pp. 425–28). RONR (11th ed.), pp 405-406 emphasis added by me. By your facts, you are not electing officers.

RONR notes this regarding notice, but this generally applies to written notice: "Unless otherwise provided in the bylaws, the number of days is computed by counting all calendar days (including holidays and weekends), excluding the day of the meeting but including the day the notice is sent. " RONR (11th ed.), p. 92

It's adopted. Time to move on.

I agree with Dr. Stackpole. This error is not one which creates a continuing breach of the rules. The motion is adopted.

I would consider the motion adopted and the minutes would of course show exactly what transpired. No changes need to be made to how the minutes are approved.

It's very clear: "A rule in the bylaws requiring that a vote—such as, for example, on the election of officers—be taken by (secret) ballot cannot be suspended, however, unless the bylaws so provide (see also Voting by Ballot, pp. 412–13). " RONR (11th ed.), p. 263. While the citation notes, as an example, an election, it applies any time a vote by ballot is required by the bylaws.

Yes, I think the custom should be followed and I wouldn't dream of raising a point of order after all this time.

Oh leave us civilized folks in PA (and some parts of the Free State of Maryland) alone.

But this is a committee.

This is his second thread on the matter. Mr. Brown correctly answered his question the first time. http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/31252-power-of-the-hoa/

I don't.

Why can't an outgoing board form a minutes approval committee to formally approve the minutes without having to bring it back to the next group of members to approve them?

You don't say which entity is authorized by the bylaws to amend them. Is it the board or membership? Whichever entity has the authority to amend them can do so as long as all procedures specified for their amendment are followed, and yes, it can be done before the elections are held if the bylaws don't prohibit it.

I've probably read this too many times but it seems like council adopted main motion X. Council has since rescinded that adopted motion. Seems fine. In the middle of all of that the mayor seems to have made a rather confusing motion to commit this subject to further study (by the city manager) before council adopts any more main motions on this subject. You don't say if the mayor's motion was adopted or not but apparently the action he proposed was taken. Frankly I don't see any major problem with it based on these facts. Council could have shot down that motion and taken further action if they really wanted to (it seems) or raised a point of order that his motion violated some rule. They didn't, apparently. You should also check with your council's attorney to see if some rule outside of the ones in RONR were violated.

The regular chairperson if present and they also conduct the election as well, even if they are running for office.

Any member, regardless of how they voted or if they voted on the original motion in question, may move to rescind or amend what was previously adopted, assuming the original motion is still applicable and hasn't been carried out, yes. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 305ff for all of the details.

That will be up to the assembly. "Whenever a meeting is being held in executive session, only members of the body that is meeting, special invitees, and such employees or staff members as the body or its rules may determine to be necessary are allowed to remain in the hall." RONR (11th ed), p. 95, emphasis added by me. When RONR uses the word "members" here it means those with the full rights of membership, including the right to vote. (See p. 3)

Yes, there is no difference between ex-officio directors and other directors in this regard. See http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#2