Search the Community

I would like some help crafting the wording to make a main motion during our annual meeting. "I move to express no confidence in the CEO of xxxxx organization", seems cut and dry but wonder if you all have a better grasp on this.

If bylaws of a society requires electing office by ballot, and the society did it by voice, the action should be what RONR 12ed. 23:6(e) says. If a member is allowed to call for a point of order when there is no business pending, the point of order is a main motion. Is it correct?

Our HOA board has an bylaw amendment written by our attorney to tighten up some things. We may have some resistance. Once I make the motion to approve the amendment, and we're in the debate and Q & A session....do I have to recognize another motion made by a resident if he wants to change anything about the wording? I want to get to a vote on the amendment as written and avoid trying to amend in the annual meeting.

For consistency and explanatory purposes, it seems like at it would be better for the motions to ratify or censure to be explained under the chapter on incendental motions rather than so cursorily at the end of the chapter on the main motion. In the very least, it seems as though the motions to ratify or censure are different enough from the motion to adopt (e.g., recommendations about action to be taken v. not-yet-validated actions perhaps already taken) that the motions should fall under separate subheadings. I raised more specific questions about the motion to ratify in an earlier post. But it also seems like the motions to ratify or censure deserve a more thorough treatment, if not with form and examples then at least with standard descritpive characteristics. I believe the motion to ratify (as opposed to the motion to censure) should not be allowed to be laid on the table such that it could ever fall to the ground. Actions requiring ratification should not go unratified. They should either be ratified or censured. I also believe the synonym to "approve" for the motion to ratify should be omitted. Otherwise the motion to "approve" (i.e., ratify) could become a conflicting term with the practice of approving minutes, which is not done by a motion. Worse, an organization could become mistaken that approving minutes which might include action in need of ratification, say from a previously held special meeting since the last regular meeting, is somehow tantamount to ratifying such actions. Which is bad.

On page 144 of RONR 11ed. an example of the chair stating the question on a pending amendment is giving as "if the word is inserted, the primary amendment will be, "to add the resolution for the purchase of the property..."". It refers to the main motion as a resolution "for the purchase of the property" without stating the main motion in its exact words. Therefore, is it OK to do so when stating the question on a secondary amendment or a primary amendment for that matter. Also, is it necessary to use the words on page 155 beginning with "it should be noted..." or can the motion be put without that added note on the motion?

If the assembly wanted to make a motion requiring all chapter delegates to pass a test in parliamentary procedure, would the better wording be "I move to require all chapter delegates to pass a test in parliamentary procedure" or "I move that we require all chapter delegates to pass a test in parliamentary procedure" or some other variation?