Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Annual meeting requirements for prior notice to amend


Steve Witwicki

Recommended Posts

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:

  1. 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?
  2. 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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see a lot of things that are troublesome.  The first is that you are trying to cram an entire annual meeting into 30 minutes.  The second is that you are limiting debate at the same meeting where it is being voted on which is a violation (no motion to limit debate).  Third is that you expect members to anticipate amendments beforehand - would you actually prevent someone from making an amendment at the Annual Meeting.  Fourth is that all of the things that should be occurring at the meeting such as debate and amendments is not occurring at the actual meeting so you are violating the rights of the absentees viz those not at the Q&A.

Why is it so important your Annual Meeting is in 30 minutes or less.  Can't you move it to when the members have more time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Steve Witwicki said:

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:

  1. 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?
  2. 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).

Who is "we"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are these procedures for short cutting normal meeting procedures spelled out in your bylaws?  

There is probably a way, through the adoption of various motions involving suspending the rules, to accomplish some of what you want, but I'm not able to think at the moment of just how you would do that. I think that to accomplish what you really want to do will require amending your bylaws.

However, if enough of your members agree, you can always adopt a Special Rule of Order limiting debate at meetings. Also, at any given meeting, a motion limiting debate can be adopted. Either method would require a two-thirds vote and adopting a special ruler water rule of order would also require previous notice. 

Edited to add:  of course, a motion for the previous question can also be adopted on each motion being considered if a two-thirds vote to adopt it can be obtained. 

Edited by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph. Edited again to correct typo caused by voice to text screwup in next to last paragraph.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...