Niki Lynn

Thank you!

So, technically, they have until the assembly reconvenes to withdraw any stated resignations–written or verbal–then, right?

One thing I forgot to mention is that she sent a message to never be contacted again-by text, phone or email. By law, no "Your resignation has been accepted" correspondence could have bee sent to her because of this request on her part. In this case, how then would it have ever been formally accepted?

Thank you.

Thanks, George. I have read that before and I don't think it addresses this situation because once she verbally quit, she only reappeared over a week later after hearing that the President (who received her resignation) left the organization. She reappeared as if nothing happened and has regained her position (which now, arguably, is also the role of President until another can be elected, since that office is now open). Also notable: it is not common practice for this group to formally "Accept" resignations once given.

If the resignation was verbal and never "Accepted" in writing, does that count as an official resignation just by receipt or not (the bylaws state resignation must be given in writing to the secretary, but it is the secretary who verbally resigned and now wants her position back)?

I have a spin-off question: if the resignation was verbal and never "Accepted" in writing, does that count as an official resignation or not (the bylaws state resignation must be given in writing to the secretary, but it is the secretary who verbally resigned and now wants her position back)? I can start a separate thread if preferred.

im saved by the bell! thanks

can you explain why 5 instead of 4? thanks!

unfortunately, yes.

my brain just went to mush reading this. joking, but kinda not–i suffered a concussion last week and dangit i cannot process this right now. thank you for the info but i may not be able to respond right away!

The bylaws would have to be edited since they currently dictate that the board's quorum is 6. the bylaws were authored by an outdated board, and adopted by the membership years ago.

Yes, appointments are an option, but literally no one will accept the appointments for various reasons. It's a catch-22.

That's very helpful. I could not agree more with your final statement. Even if we do not dissolve, we need to completely redo the Bylaws, as the original authors used apparently no wisdom at all and have caused us (mostly ME) quite a few headaches. Thank you!

Not currently at this crossroads, but I'd like to consider all possibilities re: a group with a lack of interest in filling leadership roles because we are getting close to the fork in the road. Thinking ahead, dissolution might be in order, but the Bylaws state two clauses which have me wondering which of these two would prevail. "Section 6.03. A quorum shall consist of six (6) or more members of the Board of Directors." "Section 12.01. This Association may only be dissolved by a three-fourths (3/4) vote of the Board of Directors." Currently, there are 10 board positions and 7 vacancies; only 3 members sit on the board. If dissolution is proposed, must we go by "quorum=6 or more members" meaning we would actually need to appoint 3 more members for the sole purpose of voting to dissolve; does it mean that 7 members need to be appointed to have a full board in order to proceed with a vote in which 6 of them (three-fourths) need to vote affirmatively, or does it mean that all 3 of the 3 sitting members need to vote affirmatively to dissolve for it to pass (three-fourths of 3 is greater than 2, so the third is necessary to meet the minimum)? Or something entirely different?

I/We are not trying to find ways around any requirement–I am actually doing the opposite in trying to understand the process better so that it is enforced correctly. I am one of the only ones in the group interested in complying with the requirements, so I am doing my due diligence to ensure that I have a clear understanding so that I don't mislead the group in any way. Thanks for your time.

OK, thanks for expanding. I think the confusion happened because I know and probably didn't clearly enough state that there are no remaining eligible and willing members to serve beyond the current nominees. The 4 members who have accepted nominations are literally the only ones the group could come up with to serve. Our bylaws do state that all nominees have to be vetted by the nominations committee, and they have exhausted our list of members eligible for candidacy, so any of the entries on a ballot would either fall into the "illegal" category or it would just be a repeated name of someone who has been nominated in the past but has not accepted.

Quick Question, Dan (and any others who wish to chime in): If no one else is able to accept nominations at the time of the vote, why would write-ins be allowed at that time? The nominating committee would have to vet that candidate just like an other nominee, so I am not sure what makes that scenario different.

Thanks, everyone!

Yes, our bylaws require a secret ballot vote. The language that prohibits write-ins is, "No nominations will be accepted after the January general meeting." The vote is at February general meeting, and the nominating committee submits the list of nominees at the January meeting (which occurred 2 weeks ago).

At the time of the vote, there will only be one eligible person for each office being voted on. So, instead of "yes/no" options, should the voter only see the nominee name on the ballot, and either circle it to express a vote for this nominee, or abstain by not circling it? Writing "abstain" was never encouraged as I recall from past threads, and I am not sure how else one could abstain besides just wadding up the ballot and tossing on the way out the door //content.invisioncic.com/r127373/emoticons/default_smile.png The organization is in transition right now which explains why several offices remain open, as we will be restructuring next month, and this vote will seat the leaders who will be championing that for the group. The transition will lead to far fewer offices and responsibilities in general. The bylaws do require a secret ballot vote. Yes, the bylaws state the President "shall" appoint officers when there is a vacancy.

Yes, the bylaws do state that no write-ins are allowed. The bylaws also require a secret ballot vote.

There is only one nominee per open position. We use individual ballots per office. No write-ins are allowed.

I totally forgot about this aspect. Thank you for the reminder!