Gary Novosielski

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Gary Novosielski

  • Rank
  • Birthday April 18

Profile Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

1,760 profile views
  1. I agree that such motions, if offered as a block, must be divided on the demand of a single member. They may be "related" in subject matter, but whether Alice Brown, or Charles Dumont should be hired as an administrator are clearly two separate and independent questions.
  2. In my view, all and not all have different meanings.
  3. Well, I think voting by e-mail would involve (and violate) one.
  4. The phrase "2/3 majority" is not to be found in RONR. A motion may require a majority vote, or a 2/3 vote, but not both.
  5. In your original post, you called it a motion to Postpone Indefinitely, which essentially kills the motion if it passes, but we're not clear that it did pass. Now you're calling it a motion to Postpone until the next AGM (i.e., to a definite time) . Such a motion cannot be used to postpone longer than a quarterly time interval, so this would not be in order. Earlier you suggested that the intent of the motion was to refer the matter to the board, which would be a motion to Commit/Refer. Without knowing what motion was actually made, and how it was disposed of, it's difficult to advise you on whether it was properly handled and, if not, whether it is too late to do anything about it.
  6. It may be time for them to start thinking that way, or else put up with whatever motions the gang of three want to pass in their absence. Or raise the quorum amount to a representative number.
  7. During debate on a motion, members can discuss, raise questions and concerns, modify the motion to improve it, refer it to a committee, postpone it, and ultimately vote to approve or reject it. So, no, the belief is not true that limiting discussion to pending motions prevents members from doing those things.
  8. The AGM is a meeting of members, not of the board. Was the motion to postpone approved by a vote of the membership? If so, then I guess most people agreed. Did you bring up the points you raised during debate? It is not clear to me whether the motion was actually a motion to refer the matter to the board; that would depend on the exact wording. If so, then the board has a duty to consider it and report to the membership. The board, in general, should be listening to the membership, not to us. We are not members.
  9. Yes, but in the case of an Appeal, the president's vote is likely to be predictable.
  10. The quote does not appear to be from Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR), as the words unbeatable and unnameable appear nowhere in that work. The rule about a ballot vote applies upon the demand of a single member, but not automatically. When the chair assumes a motion, that replaces the actions of moving and seconding the motion, which can be directly placed before the assembly by the chair simply by stating the motion. It is the assembly and not the chair that then decides the fate of the motion.
  11. Well, is RONR listed as your parliamentary authority? If so, then yes, the chair can call for nominations, or if he fails to do so, any member may move to re-open nominations, which requires majority approval.
  12. Your bylaws probably contain a definition of what constitutes sufficient prior notice of a meeting. If the date of the annual meeting is specified in the bylaws, it may be that notice is not required at all, In general, if a particular number of days is not specified, RONR states that when prior notice is required it must be a "reasonable" time in advance. Yes, that's open to interpretation, and the membership has the power to interpret it.
  13. The rules in RONR provide that after the nominating committee presents its report, the chair must then call for nominations from the floor. You will need to determine if your bylaws have rules that are inconsistent with that, which would take precedence.
  14. No. And once the motion has been placed before the assembly by the chair, the mover may not unilaterally withdraw it, but must move for permission to withdraw it (majority vote or unanimous consent).
  15. In that case, the variance has passed. It would have been possible to raise a point of order regarding the improper handling of the motion to table/postpone, or whatever it was, at the time, but it's too late now.