Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Yesterday
  2. jstackpo

    "Change Agenda"

    Either evaporates or forms a hopelessly opaque cloud.
  3. J. J.

    Application of Footnote Page 643

    The footnote on p. 643 refers to a motion to censure, i.e. "That _____ be censured," in its simplest form. Adopting that motion expresses an opinion of the assembly. It does not punish. There is no finding of guilt. The process described on pp. 645-7 refers to the disciplinary process for an offense, where the member is "named" by the chair. That "naming" is, effectively, the finding of guilt. Certainly a point of order could be raised that the chair has improperly "named" a member. If the member is "named" then the assembly may inflict a penalty (or decline to do so). In that case, the question is "what penalty shall be imposed upon a member (p. 647, l. 13-14)." At that point censure becomes a possible punishment; it is not the only possible punishment. The assembly is not considering the motion "That _____ be censured." Certainly censure can be a punishment, after a finding of guilt.
  4. Guest

    "Change Agenda"

    RONR 11th edition, page 352 lines 2-6. Part of the problem seems to be that many people are frequenting meetings of certain organizations that have state-mandated previous notice requirements as to what subjects may be considered. They then use the word agenda to signify the list of items that they may consider and no standard order of business exists; with the resulting effect that there is also no new business category, only the agenda items. In other words, in their minds an order of business and an agenda are two mutually-exclusive things. If we accept that an agenda may be a part of the whole and at the same time may be the entire meeting, then it seems to me that the problem evaporates.
  5. jstackpo

    "Change Agenda"

    Confirmed. Signed, your friendly neighborhood guru. Not so confident about that one. It would depend entirely on the exact terms of the "must be listed" rule. Such a rule is not to be found in RONR, so you are on your own here.
  6. Guest

    "Change Agenda"

    Thank's everyone for the explanations - I think (? ) I have it now . In the hypothetical , above ( which is likely to become an actual event ) it states that it is indicated that the two resolutions were ( not specified where ) on the agenda . But my understanding is that were resolutions properly submitted ,with a plain request that they go on an agenda - then they would properly , and always go , under : Unfinished Business and General Orders Would one of you kind rules guru's please confirm that . Thanks Then if they were struck out on the motion to approve the agenda - that would not be the end necessarily . When the meeting gets to New Business both could be raised as motions from the floor .This would apply for a bylaw resolution or any manner of proposal . But - Mindful in this ,of Mr Brown's post . If they actually must to be LISTED somewhere on the agenda to go forward , a different path may need be taken by the resolution filer who has had their proposal struck out at the outset -if they wish to go forward. Again ,would one of the experts please confirm that . Extremely helpful and thanks again to all ,and for any further wisdoms . SSA
  7. Richard Brown

    Amending Bylaws

    Agreeing with the previous posts about the propriety or appropriateness of such a bylaw change, I urge you to change the wording of the vote requirement above. That language is ambiguous, leaving uncertainty as to whether the vote requirement is an ordinary two thirds vote of the members present and voting or the vote of two thirds of the members present. Which vote requirement do you think the current rule (and your proposed rule) call for? Two thirds of those present and voting or two thirds of those present? Those are two different standards.
  8. Richard Brown

    "Change Agenda"

    I agree with all of the previous responses, but with a caveat: If the bylaws (or perhaps a special rule of order) specify that only items on the agenda may be considered at a meeting, that would create a problem and perhaps cause the proposed motions to be out of order as new business if they are not on the agenda. Some organizations have such a rule, or a variation of it, and those rules very often prove problematic because the can prevent the organization from taking up something important and urgent that cannot or should not have to wait until the next meeting. Organizations with such a rule usually require that all items of business be submitted to the chair or the secretary a certain number of days in advance and placed on the agenda in order to be taken up at the meeting. The better of such rules provide for unforeseen business to be added to the agenda or taken up with a super-majority vote of some kind. Such rules can also sometimes be suspended with a two thirds vote unless they are considered in the nature of a notice provision. A notice provision cannot be suspended or waived.
  9. Josh Martin

    "Change Agenda"

    No. Striking a motion from an agenda is not disposing of the motion. No, this is entirely correct, but when an assembly has struck a motion from the agenda, it has made no determination on the motion itself. It has simply decided the motion shall not be on the agenda. The purpose of an agenda is not to limit what business may be considered, but to ensure that the most important business is considered first. No, this is not correct. Merely submitting an item prior to a meeting does not, in and of itself, make it something other than New Business. The assembly could have made it a Special Order or General Order by placing it on the agenda, but apparently decided not to do so.
  10. jstackpo

    "Change Agenda"

    When you adopt an agenda all you are doing is setting the priority of the various items listed in the agenda - see page 371. Material in an adopted agenda becomes "General Orders", which has a higher priority that "New Business" - see page 26. So if you amend the proposed agenda by striking an item out of the list all you have done is decide that the item removed from the agenda does not merit the higher priority. You have NOT "disposed" of the item itself -- as noted, the item may be brought up under New Business by anybody who cares to move it.
  11. Tom Coronite

    "Change Agenda"

    "New Business" simply refers to matters initiated in the present meeting. See p. 26 line 17. If you're voting on adopting an agenda, you're dealing with that agenda, not the matters #1 and #2. Having a matter on an agenda isn't the same as moving it. Maybe your group would be better served by using the standard order of business, rather than adopting an agenda. (Although I do note you said this was a hypothetical situation.)
  12. Guest

    "Change Agenda"

    Thank-you Mr. Geiger . It would never have occurred to me that in such a case , where a resolution matter was struck out from an agenda ,that a member could simply offer that again under " New Business " . But for this to be accurate it means that the assembly would be again dealing with a matter it had already disposed of at the same meaning (?) - would it not ? My understanding was that once a matter had been voted on and determined by the assembly it cannot come back before the same meeting for consideration , unless perhaps through the motion to reconsider . Have I got that confused ? In addition I had understood that " New Business " was restricted to items of business that had not been in play before the assembly ,at all ,until after a meeting had been started ? Thanks for any further reply Mr.Geiger, or the view of any other forum members, who agree or disagree on any of the context here .Before I report back to those concerned I wish to make sure my report has the backing of some of the experts on this very helpful forum. Thanks to all .
  13. Atul Kapur

    Amending Bylaws

    And, even if there was a requirement or expectation in RONR that the amendment be read at the previous meeting, your bylaws are superior to RONR so you would be free to make this amendment anyway.
  14. Josh Martin

    Amending Bylaws

    The above wording is appropriate, but I would note that there is a requirement for a verbal reading prior to vote in RONR. This is done when the motion is actually pending, however, not at a previous meeting, and it may be waived if no member objects. “When any paper is laid before the assembly for action, it is a right of every member that it be read once; and, if there is any debate or amendment, that it be read again before members are asked to vote on it.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 299)
  15. Jim Anderson

    Amending Bylaws

    In an organization I am a member of and chair of the bylaws committee, our bylaws stipulate: “These Bylaws may be amended by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the voting eligible Members present at any regular meeting after such amendments have been read at a previous meeting and a copy sent to each member household in writing via US Postal Service or electronic mailing at least ten (10) days prior to the meeting at which said amendments shall be considered.” Note that prior to presenting a motion to adopt amendments to our bylaws, the proposed amendments must be read (intent is verbal reading) at a previous meeting. This requirement is becoming more and more tedious to our membership and it is considered more desirable to amend this “verbal reading” requirement to sending the proposed amendments to the membership in writing prior to the meeting where voting on the amendment will take place. My thought is that this could be accomplished by a proposed amendment stating: “These Bylaws may be amended by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the voting eligible Members present at any regular meeting after prior notice of such amendments have been sent to each membership household in writing via US Postal Service or electronic mailing at least thirty (30) days prior and a second time at least ten (10) days prior to the meeting at which said amendments shall be considered.” Since there appears to be no RONR requirement for an actual “verbal reading” prior to presenting amendments for vote, would the above wording be appropriate?
  16. Benjamin Geiger

    "Change Agenda"

    Items can be struck from a draft agenda by a majority vote, just as with any other item being amended. However, unless the bylaws or a special rule of order says otherwise, any member can simply move the resolutions during the New Business portion of the meeting (provided someone is willing to second). If a majority of the members are willing to strike the resolutions from the agenda, that doesn't bode well for its passage, but that doesn't mean it can't be attempted.
  17. Josh Martin

    Motion created by agenda instead of from the floor

    As I understand it, the dispute was regarding this: “The call did not even state "action item". All it said was date time and place and that members should make travel arrangements to be there. The call came out with plenty of time and the agenda showed up 21 days later which also is well ahead of our deadline for notice. But "the call" was our first notice of the meeting. Is agenda being sent after the "improper call" a notice since we had already been notified?” Apparently, the assembly decided that an agenda sent after the initial call which included the remaining necessary information for the special meeting, sent to all members of the board and sent the required number of days in advance, was sufficient notice under the organization’s rules for a special meeting. This seems like an entirely reasonable interpretation, and one I am personally inclined to agree with. Even if I were not inclined to agree with it, I don’t think I would describe it as “a complete disregard for the rules unless they are convenient for their purposes.” I would also note that the purpose of notice for a special meeting is to inform members of what will come up at the meeting so that members can decide whether to attend. Since all members of the board attended, it is not clear what harm was done by the alleged failure to provide proper notice. Since we have just now been informed that the vote was to remove a member, it may be that the vote is deficient for some other reason, but I cannot say for sure without knowing what your bylaws say concerning the removal of board members, how the term of office is defined, and how board members are elected. In any event, the board has made its decision. If you wish to pursue this further, you would need to take your case to the general membership, or consult an attorney to see what legal recourse you might have, if you wish to compel the board to take some action.
  18. Josh Martin

    Application of Footnote Page 643

    I agree that RONR is clear that a non-disciplinary motion of censure is permissible, but I do not think this categorically means that the assembly may always adopt a motion of censure without a trial. There was recently a lengthy discussion on this subject here.
  19. Guest

    "Change Agenda"

    This is a hypothetical : Two resolutions are properly submitted before a meeting . Resolution # 1 concerns a proposal that the organization purchase an additional new truck . Resolutions of this kind have have carried in the past ,on occasion ,on other occasions they have been defeated . Resolution #2 is a proposal to amend one of the provisions of the bylaws . There is other business , as well, properly on the draft agenda After Call to Order a motion is made to adopt the agenda . While that is pending a motion is made to amend the main motion to change the agenda by striking off Resolutions # 1 and 2 from the agenda . Would such a motion to amend be in order ?. Can the assembly " defeat " a properly filed resolution by simply striking it from the agenda ? Does amending to " change " an agenda only allow the re-arranging the order of business items on an agenda ? Does it matter what the nature of a proposed resolution is ,as to striking it off during approval of the agenda process, if striking -off is allowed ? Thanks for any response . SA
  20. Daniel H. Honemann

    Correcting Minutes

    Two points which may or may not be relevant. Adoption of a special rule of order requires previous notice and a two-thirds vote. If previous notice has not been given, the vote of a majority of the entire membership is required for adoption. As a consequence, if previous notice has not been given, and a majority of the entire membership is not present, erroneous declaration of adoption of such a rule will be null and void, since it violates a rule protecting absentees. Rules fixing the hour and place of meetings are standing rules, not rules of order.
  21. Joshua Katz

    Correcting Minutes

    First, perhaps I've made a mistake in assuming that the votes discussed in the original post were votes of the board. I'll now assume they were votes of the general membership. The membership may adopt a rule modifying disciplinary procedures, but it must do so as a special rule of order, which has its own voting threshold. However, if it has been declared adopted, then it is adopted, regardless of the vote that actually was present. So it seems to me that allowing the board to remove committee members was in order. Email voting must be authorizing in the bylaws. I suppose you could move to amend, but you could also raise a point of order, since the presence of said rule is a continuing breach. It appears to have been in order, then. I meant the decision as to the date of a meeting. Your original question was whether or not a motion is required to change when the meeting takes place when the bylaws do not specify. Yes, one is, and it is a motion to amend a special rule of order. Or you can set the meetings one by one, but it appears that, at some point in the past, you adopted a rule putting them on the 4th Thursday, so if you want to move them to the 3rd, you need to amend that rule. It provides for multiple methods, if your rules do not specify. See above for my view, given the additional information, on the committee motion.
  22. Tom Coronite

    Typos in the 11th edition

    I think the first case is the plural of basis, which is why bases is used. The second case is singular. If anything, in your first case, perhaps the plural, decisions, would be a better fit.
  23. BrianP

    Typos in the 11th edition

    I'm just beginning in the book as my question is page 4. RONR (11th ed.) p. 4, l. 30 - the word "bases" should be "basis" to match RONR (11th ed.) p. 5, l.4 Sounds the same but there is a subtle difference in the meaning.
  24. Guest

    Application of Footnote Page 643

    If you feel that this individual crossed the line then perhaps you should move to create a committee to investigate and recommend further disciplinary action. Also, what passes for censure in downtown Riyadh and downtown Las Vegas may be viewed in a vastly different way for the exact same act.
  25. Based on the information you provided, this appears to be incorrect. The agenda/notice had all the required information and was timely. Again, this appears to be incorrect. No rules appear to have been broken up to then.. It is unfortunate that they said this; and that you asked because no suspension of any rule was necessary because no rule appears to have been broken in the calling of the meeting. Was this the business that was mentioned in the agenda/notice? Perhaps, but please note that our last advice to you was that the meeting notice/agenda appeared to be proper, you made a Point of Order anyway, and the assembly -- informally -- decided against you (and, incidentally, in accordance with the rules).
  26. Beth Shaw

    Correcting Minutes

    Wow you guys are so fast and so thorough. I really appreciate it. Some answers to questions above: It depends. How are the committees appointed in the first place? Also, do your bylaws permit email voting? If not, then a motion permitting them is out of order. Committee chairs are appointed by the president per the bylaws. There is no mention of how committee members are determined. Bylaws do not allow for email voting, so it seems the motion is out of order. How can we correct this? I'm guessing I should say "I move to amend the motion previously adopted regarding the code of conduct for committee participation. I move to strike out the words, "Such vote may take place via email, at a regular or special Board meeting, or any other medium." Do the bylaws specify anything about how the decisions gets made? If not, and assuming this is a board meeting, then the board needs to either schedule the next meeting at each meeting, or adopt a pattern as you've done here, so yes. The motion about the regular meeting day was voted on at a general membership meeting (not at a board meeting). This is the only piece the bylaws that discusses decisions of the membership, "The Corporation, by majority vote of those resident members in good standing at any regular meeting, may take a position on issues which are of concern to the community or to the county." Here is the portion on Meetings: "General meetings shall be held in January, March, May, September and November of each year. Members will be given at least ten days notice of each meeting place, time and purpose by the Corresponding Secretary. Special meetings may be called by the President at any time he/she may deem necessary. Any meeting may be cancelled by a majority of the Board of Directors; notice of each such cancellation shall be given to the membership as soon as is practicable after the decision to cancel has been made." How committees are formed is not defined in the bylaws. The president has been appointing the members. What does Roberts Rules say about how committees are formed?
  1. Load more activity
×