Tom Coronite

Members
  • Content count

    424
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Tom Coronite

Profile Information

  • Location
    Weymouth MA (formerly 1stChurch)

Recent Profile Visitors

438 profile views
  1. Guest Harper, under your current rules regarding proxies, how would you handle a situation where a person attends a meeting, is carrying a proxy for another, and leaves the meeting 5 minutes after the start before any business is transacted. Would you continue to count that person or the proxy toward the quorum?
  2. Consider the fact that members who leave a (non-adjourned) meeting before it is adjourned no longer count toward the quorum.
  3. A word of caution borne of experience: in our current bylaws, ex officio members are prohibited from voting. It often leads to time-consuming discussions about whether they count towards quorum, whether they can or cannot make motions, can they second a motion... And I have yet to see any benefit in our context to prohibiting these members from voting on boards or committees. If you have a good reason, you can certainly have such a rule in your bylaws. Ask yourself many times if it's a good reason.
  4. What if you don't have them then? It will be harder to recall what was done at the previous meeting as more time elapses. Perhaps it would be better for someone other than the mia secretary to offer a draft at the meeting in a few days.
  5. Guest CAD, perhaps the heading "Good of the Order, General Good and Welfare, or Open Forum" (page 362) would be of help in your described situation. If so, it would seem such a category of proceedings would happen during a meeting, and not during a recess.
  6. yes, you're probably right. Which was why (as I read the OP a couple more times) I deleted the reply you quoted and was going to re-word it, but your above response beat me. I think you are correct.
  7. "When an assembly wishes to do something during a meeting that it cannot do without violating one or more of its regular rules, it can adopt a motion to suspend the rules interfering with the proposed action..." (p 260 ll 19-22) It would seem that overhauling these rules is certainly something you can do without violating any rules. So what would be the purpose of a motion to suspend the rules? Perhaps the way to go would be to (again) amend these rules.
  8. The 1st question in the original post begins with the words "Under RONR..." and Mr. Katz absolutely responded with what RONR says about minutes. As such, I don't see how one can disagree with what he wrote. If one wants to go above and beyond what RONR requires for minutes content, and can get one's society to agree, then that society's bylaws could call for a complete transcript of every spoken word of each meeting to be recorded for posterity, if that's what the society wants.
  9. It seems to me that if you did put that in your bylaws (which is not a good idea, BTW) you WOULD end up needing 7 affirmative votes to approve motions. A better option is to stick with the provisions of RONR, referenced in the link Mr. Huynh gave you.
  10. For your 1st question, on the minutes, RONRIB gives an example on p147-8. "Reports were given by President Darian Will, Vice-President Roxana Arthur....Treasurer Jose Rhinehart...." So it looks like "A report by Treasurer Joe Bag-o-donuts was given" would be a way to go, assuming no motions were in the report.
  11. I would answer "yes" to that last question IF you were to strike the phrase "under board of directors meetings".
  12. Perhaps you have answered your own question. Q: Are there any rights for this non-member to attend, allegedly, as "simply an observer"? A: Our bylaws state that a non-member may attend Board meetings RONR would provide that non-members may attend if the board permits it. But your bylaws apparently go further than that and allow any and all (?) non-members to attend. Are there bylaw provisions restricting their attendance, or requiring the chair to introduce them and state their purpose in attending?
  13. Or without the previous notice, get enough of the "very upset" people to show up and vote to rescind it, such action requiring a 2/3 vote without previous notice. (Or a majority of your 8000+, which I imagine would be pretty tough to do.)
  14. Yeah, I don't know how my reference came out as p122, should indeed have been p 92 to which I was referring. Hard to argue with a coin flip.
  15. If the majority of members are "very upset" maybe that will spur them to attend meetings. had they been there, I suppose they would've voted the motion down. But it sounds as if its handling was proper.