Tom Coronite

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tom Coronite

  1. Transpower, Do you see any difference in degree of specificity in "...appoints THIS (the) committee" vs "...appoints ALL committees"?
  2. Perhaps the removed officer could, after being removed, be brought onto the board again, depending on what your bylaws say and what the provision regarding "removal" means. You may be seeing why such a hard-and-fast removal clause is unwise, and maybe should be changed.
  3. Would leaving the room solely so the motion would pass, making their action singularly responsible for adopting the motion, really make them feel better than simply voting yes? It may very well be possible their fear of a "conflict of interest" is unfounded, unless they for some reason have a pecuniary interest not held in common with other members. Is that really the case?
  4. ..or a 2/3 vote, period.
  5. Absent some other info that would change the scenario it would appear you had a quorum, and the motion to rescind was properly adopted by meeting the 2/3 threshold.
  6. Or all the small dog clubs take the summer off...
  7. A church executive board, authorized to act for the church between the church's meetings, votes to join the XYZ association of churches. The adopted motion is "to join the XYZ association." Two years later at a meeting of the church, a motion is made "to terminate membership in the XYZ association." What vote is needed? Is it 2/3 because it is a motion to rescind something previously adopted, and per Official Interpretation 2006-13? Or is it a majority vote, because the original motion of the board was complied with (we joined the association) and this is simply a new action?
  8. FWIW, when I first offered this question, my thought was the wording is, indeed, crucial. If we'd decided to join the association, my thinking was that we had done that. The action was over and done with, so to leave the association would require only a majority vote. if we'd decided to be a member of the association (or something similar), that implied ongoing membership, so the higher threshold or notice applied. But the brief discussion about membership requirements and continued actions got me thinking that there would be the indication of the will of the assembly, rather than in the wording of the original motion. I do think both aspects are helpful, but the former more so. As we continue to make voluntary donations to the association, and we participate in its activities, I have a sense that membership is ongoing and desired by the church, so the threshold to rescind or amend would need to be met.
  9. Agreed. But in church meetings, so often things are driven by emotions and spur of the moment decisions, rather than planning. I suppose other groups, too. :-)
  10. There are no required actions to continue membership. But what you have suspected is the case; we do, time to time, adopt a motion to support the organization financially. I had not considered that as having a bearing on the situation, but that makes sense that it would.
  11. Would you say the same if the motion to terminate membership was not 2 years later? perhaps, the next day?
  12. Do you have an interesting opinion? :-)
  13. Not 100% sure what's behind this, but she probably doesn't even have that authority. Ensure that the procedures are followed? Yes. But (arbitrarily/unilaterally) set them? Probably not.
  14. Uncle Jim, Mr. Mervosh's answer highlights that it is the assembly that is in charge of its proceedings. The superintendent, or chair, or president, commodore, grand poobah, or any other person, is often mistakenly seen as a sole arbiter of what happens at a meeting, as we so often see in forum posts.
  15. There may be an underlying misunderstanding of what placing it before the assembly means. Typically, motions and business items happen before the assembly because they are dealt with at meetings. This is not an issue of whether or not it's widely known. It's an issue of whether the motion (or request to be excused from duty) is properly in the hands of the assembly so it may be acted upon.
  16. No argument there. I was speaking to the OP's not knowing why, rather than the performance of the chair. You are 100% correct, though (no surprise there.)
  17. Perhaps the president had in mind your bolded statement, and is unsure if the subject motion is exclusively in the purview of the board.
  18. But if you all (i.e. Rev. Darian's group) work at eliminating the extraneous material in your draft minutes, you'll likely find far less need for people to tinker around with them. Approval of the draft minutes (making them THE minutes) will likely go more smoothly, also.
  19. It sounds as if you have a number of individual amendments to consider at your meeting (and not a bylaws revision). As Mr. Honemann states, they would ordinarily be moved one at a time. Perhaps this motion by the committee chair to "adopt the bylaws package seriatim" is an unnecessary step that is unnecessarily complicating your process. Why not just handle each proposed amendment individually?
  20. If your bylaws say you shall have $500 in said account, I don't think you may consider a motion to suspend that bylaw and have $400 in said account. But I'm not entirely sure that's what the question is, and I'm not sure if the $500 stipulation is mandatory or a suggestion.
  21. First, it must be determined if the vote needed is based on the number of votes, or based on the number of members present. For example, your bylaws might say a matter is decided by a majority vote. If so, and there are 50 votes, you are correct that a majority is 26 and that's what's needed to adopt. If there were 40 votes, 21 would be needed to adopt. The number of votes determines what is needed to adopt. But if the bylaws state the matter is to be decided by a vote of the majority of members present, that is different. In such a case, if there are 50 present but only 40 vote, as you say, the majority of members present (50) is still 26. If 30 vote, 26 is still needed to adopt. Lines 21-24 apply in the case where the number of members present, rather than the number of votes, is the determining factor. So the chair needs to know how many were present at the time of the vote.
  22. Guest Maureen: see pp 104-105 where RONR states motions to "reaffirm" a position previously taken by the adoption of a motion are not in order, and a motion that only proposes that the assembly "refrain" from doing something (when the same effect is achieved by offering no motion) should not be offered, and it's preferable to avoid a motion containing a negative statement so as not to confuse members as to its effect. If by "make a motion not to do something" you mean any of those things, you shouldn't do it.
  23. Just think, one person could thwart the will of any assembly by giving notice of intent to rescind every motion adopted.
  24. Ah. Good point.
  25. Wy is the fact that 4 would coincidentally be the number of committee memebers as well as a majority of the small board of trustees a concern? You're not concerned that 4 could decide they are empowered to act as the board, are you? (I ask because I've known exactly such a situation to happen.)