Steve Witwicki

Thanks for all the input . . . somehow I didn't think it would be simple. The best advice seems to be the last one: hold your meeting at a time when full consideration is possible. @George Mervosh: "we" refers to the organization (church body) yet I'm not sure any of it is actually recorded anywhere (you know—it's what we've always done) in writing as a practice or mentioned in the bylaws. Based on what I've heard from the three respondents above, I'm thinking if someone actually challenged the practice, RR could be be cited and the practice of forcing someone to attend one of the Q&A forums in order to amend the budget would be forced to stop. Sounds like debate and amendments MUST be allowed AT the meeting in which the original motion (to adopt) is made.

I wasn't quite sure how to word the title of this question so I hope what I wrote is clear. For the purposes of expediency (and a short annual meeting) we require any proposals or motions for new subjects to be submitted in writing in advance of the meeting. We are a church organization and our meeting is typically held on a Sunday morning in between worship services. Lengthy considerations are typically held for a special meeting just to deliberate whatever matter it may be. Our goal is to conduct the annual meeting in 30 minutes or less. In regard to regular recurring items (such as the adoption of a proposed budget) we have attempted to limit questions and discussion from the floor by conducting budget Q&A forums a few weeks previous to the meeting. We have instructed voting members that the Q&A session is the time and place to ask for clarification or refining of the document. My question is two-fold: Since we allow a separate time for questions, etc. ahead of and outside of the annual meeting, can we, in considering passage of the budget, say at the annual meeting that we will not allow discussion or debate on the motion to pass it since members have had the opportunity? Similarly, can we also say that at the annual meeting we will not allow an amendment to the motion as well? If we must allow amendments, could we propose that any such amendments be submitted in writing in advance of the meeting so that attendees know in advance what they are considering? That last one is what got us into a rather lengthy exchange and caused our last annual meeting to run twice as long as we would have liked. In addition, (I felt) that the proposed amendment to change the budget, even if properly understood when voiced from the floor, was far too complex for anyone to really approve without more information (and a much longer discussion or presentation of its merits). Just looking for ways to save time yet allow the body to present legitimate concerns (and stay within the legal mandates of RR).