[FONT=Arial,sans-serif]I wouldn’t expect a president or parliamentarian to attend a meeting with only part of their governing documents. A copy of RONR should be available at every meeting if RONR is what governs their meetings. ( I admit I am a meeting junkie and carry a well-tattered copy with me.)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,sans-serif]<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p> </o:p>[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,sans-serif]If your organization fills a vacancy in a manner that is different from Robert’s, then by all means – have it written into your bylaws. The book is 600+ pages but the few (6) pages that cover vacancies need not be condensed into your bylaws. Better yet, cover it in a procedure manual that refers to RONR on specifics.<o:p></o:p>[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,sans-serif]<o:p> </o:p>[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,sans-serif]I agree that the bylaws template offered here leaves much to the imagination and for Robert’s to fill in. The bylaws template fails to clarify when RONR kicks in. <o:p></o:p>[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,sans-serif]<o:p> </o:p>[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,sans-serif]In article VIII, the bylaws should state something like “[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,sans-serif]The rules contained in the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised shall govern this organization in all cases in which they are applicable and in which they are not in conflict with these bylaws (or articles of incorporation). <o:p></o:p>[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,sans-serif]<o:p> </o:p>[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,sans-serif]The final article says RONR rules everything – no exceptions- while other articles within the document are specialized and differ from RONR. The conflict would most assuredly drive anyone to drink or -at the very least – immediately offer amendments to the bylaws.[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,sans-serif]<o:p></o:p>[/FONT]

With respect, I disagree.

In the first place, if you're going to rely on RONR for something this important, then somebody better have a copy of RONR at every meeting, and I don't find that very likely.

Second, there's absolutely nothing wrong with a bylaw stating what happens if there's a vacancy at president. Such a bylaw doesn't "clarify" or "reword" RONR at all; RONR itself recognizes this by specifying that its provision in this case applies "unless the bylaws expressly provide otherwise". And in my experience (yes, sadly, I have some in these circumstances, though not with a PTO), expressly providing for this circumstance in the bylaws eliminates arguments.

And finally, at the very least the sample bylaws are flawed by not annotating the fact that to avoid a problem in this case, the reference to RORN as parliamentary authority (or some other authority with a similar provision) must be retained.

There is no omission regarding the filling of a presidential vacancy.
These bylaws state that RONR (Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised) is the parliamentary authority. RONR states that in the absence of a contradicting bylaw, the VP takes over as President and there is a vacancy in the VP position.
It is never a good idea to "reword" or "clarify" RONR in your bylaws. If your bylaws are lacking direction or specificity, RONR covers it 99.99% (or more) of the time.

The annotated bylaws offered on ptotoday.com seem pretty good to me, but they have one flaw: They do not provide for a vacancy in the office of president. The bylaws say the president can appoint a member to fill any vacancy, but they don't say what happens if the presidency becomes vacant.

Your state law may specify that the vice president automatically becomes president if the presidency becomes vacant -- or it may not. Unless you know for sure, it would be smart to specify that in the bylaws. A vice president who fills a vacancy in the presidency would then be president and have the authority to appoint a new vice president under these bylaws.