Bruce Lages

Members
  • Content count

    1,092
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Bruce Lages

Profile Information

  • Location
    Northeastern NJ
  1. If a motion is made and not seconded, there should be nothing to postpone (and discussion can not be postponed, only motions). Without a second, the motion should die, and can just be made again at the next meeting. The exception to this in your case could be that discussion was allowed to begin without a second ever being offered. In that case the absence of a second is immaterial, and the motion is before the assembly and can be postponed to the next meeting.
  2. It seems to me that this organization's bylaws contain a rather unique term of office statement that includes both the "and until..." and the "or until..." qualifiers. This group is probably going to have to decide for itself if one takes precedence or whether either one can be invoked as needed for the situation.
  3. Guest Sarcazm - for future reference you'll likely get more responses to your question if you post it as a new topic, rather than tacking it onto a 6 year old thread.
  4. The answer to your other two questions is also 'yes': It is correct that once an office has been vacated, the former office-holder can only regain that office by election, or possibly by appointment to fill a subsequent vacancy in that office if that is how your rules address the filling of vacancies. It is also correct that when an election is held to fill a vacancy in office, the office is filled for the duration of the original office-holders term. In the case you cited, the vacancy should be filled for the 4 years remaining from the original term.
  5. I'm a little concerned about your wording of 'our practice ..." What does your constitution say about the method for their amendment? If your 'practice' deviates in any way from the procedures specified in your constitution, then that practice is subject to a point of order that the rules in the constitution are not being followed. Also, who are the members who attend the AGM and have voting rights?
  6. So I guess the critical question here is whether the rules governing your town council allow for a second meeting to be called - with proper notice - for later the same night as the first meeting, since the second meeting does not seem to be a continuation of the first.
  7. No, but an amendment which changes the meaning of the first motion can be offered ( e.g., "I move to commend..." can be amended to state "I move to censure...").
  8. To me, a resolution submitted to the committee but not yet under consideration is analogous to a motion stated by the maker but not yet stated by the chair. In this case, the maker of the motion is free to withdraw the motion (RONR, p. 40, ll.8-9), so the maker of the resolution should be free to withdraw it. That could be accomplished by being present at the committee meeting - if possible - and ask that the resolution be withdrawn, or by otherwise communicating with the committee the desire to withdraw the resolution. Even if the committee starts consideration of this resolution, the maker still has the right to request its withdrawal. It is then up to the committee to grant the request or not (p. 40, ll.10-13).
  9. Mr. Honemann's point that it would be just as easy to start over again is a large part of what I was thinking in my answer. While it is true that only a majority is necessary to approve the motion to ratify, it is also true that ratify opens up the entire question to debate (p. 126, ll 19-20) and, I presume, amendment as well. If there is no strong opposition to the actions taken, then certainly ratify can settle the issue quickly and efficiently. However, if there are major concerns about the actions taken, it seems to me that starting over would be just as efficient, if not more so.
  10. Yes, according to RONR, only business that is listed in the call for the special meeting can be considered at that meeting. Any business not mentioned in the call is not in order, and would be considered null and void upon a point of order being raised. I assume your last sentence refers to items voted on at a special meeting that were not listed in the call. I suppose the assembly could move to ratify those items if everyone is in agreement with them. However, the proper method for dealing with such matters would be to raise a point of order that all such matters were adopted improperly.That point of order should be ruled well taken and the items declared null and void. There is no need to move to re-vote on these items. Once ruled null and void, they can be introduced again at any regular meeting - for which no notice is required - or introduced again at another special meeting, with proper notice.
  11. I think this is a perfect example where a correction can be made by unanimous consent, and probably should be made by amendment at a meeting if the name was mis-spelled in an officer's written report. But note that written reports are not typically included in the minutes, only kept on file by the secretary, or as an attachment to the minutes.
  12. I wonder if Tina Marie meant to say "but we were able to retain articles of incorporation."
  13. He certainly should if he feels the need to enter into debate on the motion. But the president's job as chair is to stay impartial by not engaging in debate, and only voting under certain circumstances. If he is doing this job properly, I wouldn't see a need to relinquish the chair just because a relative made a motion.
  14. The quarterly time interval restriction in RONR would not allow a motion introduced in the first week of May to be postponed to a meeting in mid-September because that interval is greater than RONR's definition of a QTI. However, as Mr, Martin noted above, if your rules say the motion is postponed to the next regular meeting, then that rule supercedes the QTI rule in RONR and the motion should be brought up at the September meeting.
  15. If your bylaws state specifically that the vice presidents shall be designated by numbers 1-3, you can't just decide to stop using the numbering for their positions unless you amend the bylaws to remove the numbering. While the resolution of your issue is clearly a matter of bylaws interpretation for your organization to sort out, my view would be that the inclusion of the numbers for the VP positions is intended to identify them as different offices - I would agree with your president.