Richard Brown

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Richard Brown

Profile Information

  • Location
    New Orleans, LA
  • Interests
    Becoming an Exalted Grand Poo-Bah

Recent Profile Visitors

1,693 profile views
  1. Perhaps. And it does seem like a good way to make the request. But, you do understand that this is a town council meeting and guest Alex is a member of the public and not a council member, right? And that the RONR provision you mentioned refers to members of the body that is meeting.
  2. That is something entirely up to your council.
  3. RONR expressly prohibits non members from voting and says the rule may not be suspended. RONR goes on to say that the rule against non members speaking in debate can be suspended, but it is silent as to whether the rules may be suspended to permit non members to make motions. Taking the language on page 263 as a whole, it is my opinion that since suspending the rule is not prohibited, it may be suspended to allow a non member to make a motion. However, as has already been pointed out, it may be better, easier and less controversial for the non member to ask a member to make the motion on his behalf.
  4. Possibly. What exactly do your bylaws say about nominations and elections?
  5. As to changing your rules or bylaws to do (or prevent) the things you suggested, such as not allowing motions related to committee reports and not allowing motions without previous notice, i personally think both suggestions are not usually wise. The rules of order in RONR are time tested over more more than 100 years. They were well thought out and work very well for most organizations. when people start tinkering with them, adverse results and unintended consequences usually follow. I think it is far better for you and the members of your organization to actually familiarize yourselves with the rules in RONR.
  6. Motions which arise from committee reports can properly be made during the portion of the agenda or order of business on committee reports. It is proper and customary to make a motion which is related to a committee report immediately after the report is given. Such a motion can also be made later in the meeting during new business, but I believe it is more common to make such a motion immediately following the relevant committee report. I also agree with those who believe that Mr A's second motion was sufficiently different from his first motion as to have been appropriate and in order. A point of order that it was not in order would have to have been made immediately and would have been a judgement call on the part of the chair. However, it is now too late to object on that basis. The breach, if there was one, has been waived. Mr. A's second motion has been validly adopted based on the information provided and RONR. Edited to add: even if Mr A's motion was not related to a committee report, any objection would have to been made timely. it's too late to object now and it was also too late at the second meeting. Mr. A's second motion was validly adopted.
  7. Just to follow-up and reinforce what Mr. Katz said, it is a common misconception that one member can stop debate simply by calling for the question. As Mr. Katz pointed out, to end debate requires motion for the previous question (or to end debate - same thing) and a two-thirds vote. One person alone cannot force debate to stop although the chair, seeing that no one else wishes to speak, may proceed directly to a vote. Edited to add: you might look at FAQ # 11 for more information.
  8. The bottom line in all of this is that what happened at the first meeting was proper and mr. A's second motion was properly adopted and is in effect. At the second meeting mr. B's motion to rescind failed and therefore mr. As second motion from the first meeting is still in effect.
  9. No, it did not. What makes you think it needed amending? It doesn't, but someone who voted on prevailing side could have moved to reconsider it. If someone who voted yes on the motion had a change of heart and wanted it to be reconsidered, that person could have moved to reconsider it. Perhaps, but not necessarily. You were presumably in new business when his first motion was made. Unless you have a customized rule to the contrary, items of new business do not have to be listed on an agenda. Any new business is appropriate during new business. Even if you were following unadopted agenda and Mr.. A should have waited until the other items of new business listed on the agenda were completed, it is not such a violation that renders his motion void. Also, a timely point of order would have to have been raised at the time of the violation. Finally, as mr. Katz pointed out, at the second meeting Mr. B's motion to rescind Mr. A's motion would have required a two-thirds vote since there was no previous notice of the motion. In the alternative, it could have been adopted by the vote of a majority of the entire membership of the board. In a small Board of seven members, if everyone is present, it is easier to get a vote of a majority of the entire board than it is a two-thirds vote. Edited to add: i see where you corrected your post to say you meant to ask if Mr. A's first motion should have been amended. It could have been amended, but it was not necessary. As we have already told you, Mr. As second motion was proper because it presented a different question than his first motion did.
  10. Need 2 Learn, will weigh in with my opinion later, when I am on a computer. It's too much typing to do on a cell phone. Keep checking back. In a nutshell, what happened at the first meeting was fine. It's in the second meeting that things got really screwed up.
  11. Agreeing for the most part with both Mr. Martin and Mr. Katz, this sounds more like a bylaws revision rather than a few isolated bylaw amendments. I'm not sure yc2017 completely understands the distinction. With individual (or several) bylaw amendments, any proposed amendments to those amendments must be within the scope of notice of the original proposals. But with a bylaws revision, there is no scope of notice requirement/limitation. Anything goes. The range of amendments to the proposed revised bylaws is wide open. That is because a whole new set of bylaws is being proposed much like when a new society is being organized. Whether this was a revision with the adoption of a new set of bylaws or just a few isolated amendments is a factual determination that only the society itself can make. The fact that a complete copy of both the existing bylaws and the proposed bylaws was furnished to the membership makes me think it was a general revision, but that is a determination that only the society can make.
  12. Even in light of this society's bylaws that grant specific authority to the board to appoint non-members to committees? It seems to me that that provision supersedes the provisions in RONR.
  13. It is not necessary to have a motion to adjourn. The chair, once the order of business has been completed, can ask if there is any other business to come before the assembly. If not, he can simply say if there's no further business the meeting is adjourned.
  14. Based on the original post, I'm not sure what happened. It appears that there was an amendment to the bylaws was properly before the assembly and that the assembly amended that proposal and then adopted the proposal as amended. But, I'm far from sure and I hope YC2017 will clarify for us exactly what happened. Such an amendment would be in order, provided it was within the scope of notice of the original proposed bylaw amendment.
  15. Guest MAK, I really don't understand what you are asking. Can you try elaborating or rephrasing your question?