jstackpo

Members
  • Content count

    7,017
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About jstackpo

Profile Information

  • Location
    Solomons, Maryland
  1. Actually... if you read p. 487, lines 26-31, with care, it sure looks as though the "small board rules" are the default for a small board -- it isn't optional. So if a contentious small board (we've all been there) wished to follow the full formal ("large board") rules it would require a motion (presumably to suspend the rules) to do so.
  2. In general an appointing official has the power to remove and replace his/her appointees, at will. But if your parliamentarian was a professional under contract or was in his job by virtue of some other arrangement beyond simple appointment, there might be legal or administrative aspects to consider. We don't do legal here.
  3. Try pages 405-406. In general the chair should not vote unless he/she REALLY wants to and the vote will determine the outcome. This helps to maintain his impartiality. (Ballot votes: he votes with all others as his wishes remain unknown, technically.) Don't forget that voting to make a tie (and defeat a motion, or cause an election to be incomplete) is an much "determining the outcome" as voting to break a tie, and thus adopt a motion.
  4. Perhaps with a little "friendly persuasion", the board can find some other person (your proverbial "dark horse") on whom a majority will settle, so you can get on with business (and living).
  5. The parliamentary step is simply to move to rescind the bylaws, entirely. See p. 563. This motion is, in effect, a (rather drastic, to be sure) amendment to the bylaws and so its introduction and adoption will have to follow whatever rules for bylaw amendment are found in your current bylaws. Give some thought to the disposition of the bank account, if you have one, and any incorporation or tax issues, as well. Once rescinded, you and your 12 or so friends are free to start over again -- see RONR p. 553 for all the right steps to follow. 'Course, you could just walk away from your current association and start a new one, but that might leave you with competing organizations, not as tidy as first dissolving (by rescission) the existing one.
  6. Did the bylaws (prior to the changes you describe as the "new rules") require advance notice for the consideration of bylaw amendments?
  7. Duplicate post
  8. If the majority of the membership in attendance don't want to continue with the meeting (even though it was a special meeting called for a specific purpose) the have two choices: 1) Move to adjourn the meeting and vote to adopt that motion; 2) Just walk out, presuming that those who might remain do not add up to a quorum - this can be a little risky; #1 will end the meeting and #2 will end the opportunity to do any further business in the meeting.
  9. I'd say no. Once the Board has set, and the CorSec has sent out the 30-day notice, that's it. People have planned for that time.
  10. Well, it would be "per your bylaws" not per RONR. Do your bylaws require Board agreement or a vote to approve a presidential appointment? RONR doesn't. So ask your friends to show you the "required" rule -- they won't be able to, unless it is in some part of the bylaws you haven't told us about.
  11. Sure -- it is up to the president. But then he/she will have to appoint someone to the remainder of your one-year term.
  12. Your last paragraph is entirely correct. Ask your president where he got this (strange) notion that the body which has authority to adopt the budget cannot amend it first. Surely not from RONR.
  13. Try again, but this time DON'T offer an "either/or" choice. Instead do "Grandfather? Yes/no" or "New Fees? Yes/no" and see what comes of it. If both are defeated your current fee schedule -- presumably in the bylaws or somewhere -- remains in place. (If both are adopted, you have a puzzle to work out!) Also (administrative) next time start a new topic rather than piggybacking on an old one (even though the topic is much the same).
  14. You won't, because the Board can't -- your bylaws appear to give the president the authority to set those "other meeting" dates, which could (with a bit of interpretation) could include postponed meetings. RONR says that (future) meeting dates are set by the membership (of the board for board meetings) - see p. 89ff -- or the bylaws And for the Board to set one of them, the board has to meet (!) in order to vote to set another meeting date (via postpoing, for example) which rather destroys the point of setting meeting dates. If you are meeting, do what needs to be done then and there. Do your bylaw allow for e-mail voting or decisions, such as postponing meetings? If not, then stick to your properly adopted schedule of meetings as you describe in your first sentence.
  15. The real crazy thing was letting the chairman break the tie -- did he/she vote twice, in effect? Unless the bylaws give the chair that power (quite unlikely) the election remains incomplete. Raise a point of order to that effect next meeting, and be prepared to go with another round of voting, or two, or more.