Joshua Katz

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Joshua Katz

  • Rank
    RP, Formerly Godelfan
  1. As much as this is always a mistake, I disagree. How was it decided that some company or other must be hired, and voting will continue until one is selected? So far as I can tell, this is the first vote on the matter, and simply making a motion that one or another company be hired doesn't require that the organization hire someone.
  2. I agree, but it also seems rather clear to me that if, according to applicable statute, you need a majority of those present to vote in favor of something in order for it to pass, and less than those do, then it doesn't pass. In truth, I'm somewhat concerned about the way this vote is set up, as an A/B choice, when a member can prefer to do nothing, or to use a different company, etc. Assuming the rule of order is as described, though, I suppose an abstention functions as a vote to go with neither company, but it still bothers me because that's less than clear, and because the method of voting certainly provides a 'push' in favor of these companies. If a majority vote cannot be gotten, then presumably you need to give the board other options.
  3. I fall somewhere in the middle. It looks to me like being nominated by the BDC is the only way to be a candidate, but that a write-in campaign can still fill the office. In other words, it doesn't look to me like a qualification for office, but rather a restriction on nominations. There's a fourth way to read it, but it is neither likely nor interesting.
  4. I know, I was just chatting.
  5. Wouldn't stopping it also raise the same problem? "Hey, you can't talk about that, we said during the ES that..."
  6. It violates the very purpose of a deliberative assembly, as described in RONR.
  7. Perhaps I'm crazy, but it would seem to me that if the motion is to amend something previously adopted, and what is previously adopted is the, say, July minutes, then once that motion carries, the thing previously adopted - the July minutes - should be so amended.
  8. I can't follow what the member is saying, but I agree that if the bylaws require $500 to be in the account, any motion to keep it at $400 is out of order.
  9. If the individual is not a member of the organization, then he, by definition, cannot make any motions, including motions to amend the bylaws.
  10. You might want to look at pp. 650-651, to which you were referred earlier, and which contain the process for putting a point of order and appeal to the assembly when the chair has (in the view of the member, incorrectly) ruled them dilatory.
  11. Well, all I said was it's okay to differ from RONR. It's hard for me to say if it's harmless without knowing more about the organization. On the other hand, you bring up something I hadn't noticed originally: the rule doesn't exactly say "entire membership." I agree with your reading, but I think it's possible the organization didn't mean that and doesn't want that, in which case they certainly should change the language.
  12. To address what I suspect might be the underlying question: it is fine for your rules to give a different threshold for this than RONR (this rule not only gives a different threshold, but a different basis too). Your bylaws prevail in that case.
  13. RONR doesn't talk about bank accounts, although your own rules might. It seems rather commonsense to me, though, that two members of your board cannot open a private bank account and put organization funds in it - I think there's a word for that. It helps to remember that, aside from executive functions and those in your rules, members of a board have no actual power as individuals. Their power in the organization is to vote on board decisions.
  14. I agree with Mr. Brown that I'm sure there is a way. I also suspect that figuring out and executing that way, without it being in the bylaws, will take about half an hour. Regardless, there being a way doesn't mean it's a good idea. I certainly would not vote to approve a budget if I were not permitted to debate it and if amendments were prohibited. If I walked into a meeting, and 2/3 of those present voted on such rules, I would just vote no on the budget. On what basis have you instructed voting members that the Q&A session is the time and place to ask for ... refining of the document? Unless it appears somewhere in your rules, you have no reason to be giving such an instruction, since according to RONR (which I assume is your parliamentary authority) the time and place for such refinement is the meeting at which the document is to be adopted, or at least, that is one time and place for it. If the Q&A sessions is not a meeting where business can be conducted, trying to shove disagreement over there is an attempt, whatever your intent, to limit your members rights to control of their communally owned property. Also, you're trying to require people to be at two, well, things, in order to have any input on an item of business at the second one. Similarly, I'd be concerned that someone might want to move an amendment based on the discussion taking place at the meeting. There's also tactical reasons I may want to, where no notice is required, move an amendment at the meeting, and I believe your members should have that right, too. If the group, though, wishes to adopt such rules, it should do so. It seems that it hasn't, and that, instead, you (whoever is included in the plural here) have been instructing them not to exercise their rights. I think that is improper. I also think you should hold your meeting at a time when full consideration is possible, particularly if you're asking members to adopt a budget.
  15. Without disagreeing with SaintCad, on the more limited question about minutes - yes. The Secretary produces a draft of the minutes for approval. You can make requests of the Secretary all you want, but ultimately, they put into the draft what they want to put in. The assembly can amend them while pending (or later, via the motion to amend something previously adopted), and can order anything put in that they want (although that doesn't make it a good idea), but an individual member cannot insist that something they said or did make it into the minutes. Further, the minutes should record what was done, not what was said - but what was done means actions taken by the assembly, not the physical actions of people present at the meeting. So, unless some action was taken to discipline the interrupter, or a point of order was raised, or something happened, a presenter not finishing their report should not, in my view, be in the minutes. The assembly didn't decide that you shouldn't finish - you did. The assembly took no action, it appears, regarding the interrupter, so the minutes shouldn't report on them in a way that the assembly has not approved.