Improper amendment of something previously adopted?

[Guest Janey]

I am a member of a Board that voted to change its meeting date, time, and place. The minority (adamantly opposed to the new calendar) have continued to try to invalidate the change (which was adopted by a 2/3rds majority with previous notice), first by ignoring, then by requesting an email vote (our bylaws prohibit email voting), then by making a motion at the last meeting--which I suppose "carried out" the previous motion (at least for that first meeting of the newly adopted calendar).

There was no previous notice.

There was a simple majority affirmative vote on the new(?) motion (that did not state amend or rescind--but it really is the same issue. (The simple majority, was actually a minority of the full body, so it was neither 2/3rds of the body present or a majority of the full body.)

Is this valid? (I suspect no.)

If this is not valid, what is the appropriate way to address this at the next meeting?

(FWIW, the issue at hand addresses having enough time to address the issues on the agenda, by debate and vote. Historically, we have not enough time and members have never been allowed to debate, only vote, thus the overwhelming majority voted to lengthen the meetings and increase the frequency. It has been opined that the minority is attempting to stifle debate and action as puppets from the administration this body advises. In other words, this is an important issue to this body.)

[jstackpo]

Couple of questions (or more):

How were (are-?) meetings scheduled before the time of the motion to change the schedule?

Did the motion to set the new schedule set out a permanent change for your meeting times? Or was it just for the next meeting?

It looks to me (but remember, I wasn't there) that the improper adoption of the "change back" motion set up a continuing breach, p. 251, which can, and should, be raised as a point of order at your next meeting that the motion is invalid. (Someone should have raised the point at the time - it would have taken care of things right away,)

Your recourse is to raise that point and then show up at your meetings regularly so this won't happen again.

[Guest Janey]

Couple of questions (or more):

How were (are-?) meetings scheduled before the time of the motion to change the schedule?

The previous meeting schedule (which predated my membership--but not by long) was set to X date of each month (with a few more complications not germane to this question.)

Did the motion to set the new schedule set out a permanent change for your meeting times? Or was it just for the next meeting?

The motion to set the new schedule was for the next year and indefinite. In other words, the calendar is printed for the entire year, however, presumably the following year would keep the new schedule absent any changes.

It looks to me (but remember, I wasn't there) that the improper adoption of the "change back" motion set up a continuing breach, p. 251, which can, and should, be raised as a point of order at your next meeting that the motion is invalid. (Someone should have raised the point at the time - it would have taken care of things right away,)

Your recourse is to raise that point and then show up at your meetings regularly so this won't happen again.

I attend the meetings regularly. Recognizing the problem that our body was not meeting frequently enough nor long enough, I effectively initiated the movement (but not the motion--don't ask) that increased both the frequency and the duration.

The two members (at the time the new calendar was voted upon) opposed the motion that carried. One of those two members is now the Chair. It was the Chair who made the motion--and presided over the motion (yes, yes, I know) to "amend" (I suppose that is what was technically done, though improper) the motion two meetings later (when he became Chair and when he effectively had a simple majority due to other members being absent).

The politiking necessary for this board is rough, let me tell you, and without an obvious majority to support a point of order--there is no point in making it (the former Chair didn't know what a POI is; the current Chair is learning).

[jstackpo]

By "how was the old schedule set" I meant: was it a motion, a bylaw provision, something else, and who did the setting? When? Where it is recorded or written down? (I don't care about the content of the motion - the schedule itself.)

But... unless you can hustle up a majority of members who agree with you, and get them to a meeting to back you up, it is probably a lost cause.

[Guest Nancy N.]

John (and Janey), I think OI 2006-18, http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_18 , applies here, not OY 17. In the event that I finally got this right, OY 17 applies to motions that obliviously propose to do something that violates a rule that is already in place, for which we can be eaten by zombies forever; OY 18 applies to motions that, instead, specifically target the current rule, and which will stand (amending that current rule) if declared adopted by the chair without being promptly challenged by a point of order (or by a zombie, but I'm gtting tired of having to point that out every time).

CT 3

(As it happens, a few minutes ago, I was challenged at Yahoo Mail to interpret a few letters to confirm my identity. Of course I got it on the first try -- the filter is. of course and obviously, designed to be trivially decipherable by people while casually swatting away 'bots like flies. And it's not a new filter. Does the host server really thing that the website is a captive, voiceless cash cow?)

CT 4. If I were a newcomer, I'd be gone. And does anyone doubt that there have been quite a few?

CT5.

[Dan Honemann]

Fair warning!

All responses posted in either the General or Advanced Forums which incorporate complaints about the captcha being used are very apt to be deleted, no matter whether or not something else of real value is included in the response.

[George Mervosh]

The minority (adamantly opposed to the new calendar) have continued to try to invalidate the change (which was adopted by a 2/3rds majority with previous notice)

If I missed it one of the followups, let me know, but why was the vote required to adopt (the change to?) the calendar a 2/3 vote with previous notice?

[Guest Edgar]

Fair warning!

Fair enough.

2q3Pen

[jstackpo]

John (and Janey), I think OI 2006-18, http://www.robertsru...st.html#2006_18 , applies here, not OY 17.

Well, you may be right, but I'm not sure. So I raised the question over on the "Advanced Discussion" board here.

[Guest Janey]

If I missed it one of the followups, let me know, but why was the vote required to adopt (the change to?) the calendar a 2/3 vote with previous notice?

The only thing you missed--rather inserted/inferred--was "required". There wasn't a requirement; it's just the way it played out. There was notice (it was actually a special meeting for that purpose). There was a 2/3rds majority. The moment that 2/3rds was not present in even a simple majority, the rule was changed per the motion by the chair, along with the other sole supporter and their puppet.

[Guest Janey]

By "how was the old schedule set" I meant: was it a motion, a bylaw provision, something else, and who did the setting? When? Where it is recorded or written down? (I don't care about the content of the motion - the schedule itself.)

But... unless you can hustle up a majority of members who agree with you, and get them to a meeting to back you up, it is probably a lost cause.

The "old schedule" was per the bylaws. The Board changed the schedule and then changed the bylaws to reflect the schedule change. (The reasoning behind all of this begs many questions, but that detracts from this question.)

The bylaws stated X amount of meetings per year once per month and not less than Y meetings per year.

Beyond that, the actual day of the month and the time frame appears to have been set by support staff and not the Board itself. I say "appears" because I was not a member at the time, but that is what I have learned--I have NOT found anything in previous minutes suggesting the Board set the day and time previous to the recent meeting for this purpose at which I was present.

[jstackpo]

The "old schedule" was per the bylaws. The Board changed the schedule and then changed the bylaws to reflect the schedule change. (The reasoning behind all of this begs many questions, but that detracts from this question.)

Do your bylaws give bylaw amendment power to the Board? If not, then the board's "amendment" to the bylaws is null and void.

[Guest Janey]

Yes, indeed the Board has the power to amend the bylaws...but we're getting off track, aren't we?

[Josh Martin]

The only thing you missed--rather inserted/inferred--was "required". There wasn't a requirement; it's just the way it played out. There was notice (it was actually a special meeting for that purpose). There was a 2/3rds majority. The moment that 2/3rds was not present in even a simple majority, the rule was changed per the motion by the chair, along with the other sole supporter and their puppet.

Based on the information provided, it seems the key facts are as follows (correct me if I am in error):

• The board adopted a motion to change the calendar.
  
• At a later meeting, the board adopted a motion to change the calendar to something else.
  
• Notice was not provided of the latter motion, and it was adopted by less than a 2/3 vote.
  

It's unclear whether the motion was adopted by a majority of the entire membership. If so, then it doesn't seem that the board did anything wrong except for failing to use precise terminology. If not, then the chair was in error to declare the latter motion to change the calendar adopted, however, the result still stands. See Official Interpretation 2006-18. Although the formal terminology "amend something previously adopted" was not used, everyone seems clear that this was the intent. Neither a failure to use the formal terminology nor the chair's error in declaring the result of the vote constitutes a continuing breach - a Point of Order would have had to be raised at the time.

There is, of course, nothing that prevents members who preferred the other schedule from adopting a motion changing it back. The proper motion is to Amend Something Previously Adopted, which requires a 2/3 vote, a vote of a majority of the entire membership, or a majority vote with previous notice.

Apparently amending the Bylaws (again) may also be required, for which you should follow the amendment process in your Bylaws.