jstackpo

Certainly.  Page 94, line 13ff.    (That was new text, at that location, anyway, in the 11th ed., which is why it might have slipped by you.)

Not parliamentarily "tricky" to be sure, but organizationally so.   As long as Rev Jones was otherwise qualified per whatever church rules might apply.

And a tricky one (just to give the OP, Luke, something to fret about...) would be an amendment to Strike Out "Smith" and insert "Jones".

(I am assuming that the Rev Jones was considered by the search committee, but Rev. Smith was the committee's final choice.)

Might make for a lively meeting!

Co-chairs?  No, unless the bylaws authorize them.

Click here to get some reasons why it is a bad idea.

What is it for?

Somebody has to have the responsibility of getting things under way, doing what is asked of the committee.  And reporting to the parent body what the committee did, concluded, recommends, &c.  Chairman is the best bet to do all that, and more.

Only if the latter isn't coming in the door.

Which is to say that once postponed, the main motion is assured of coming up next meeting, come hell or high water.  (Barring "suspend the rules", of course).

8 hours ago, Guest SAA said:

Mr "Jstackpo" and Mr Martin do not seem entirely agreed...

See the "Advanced Topics" forum (Topic: Postpone Rescind) for more on this "disagreement".

Given:  At the previous meeting, a main motion (MM) was made, debated for a while, then properly postponed to the current meeting, with no time set.

At the current meeting, before reaching General Orders (when MM would normally be taken up), is it proper to move to rescind the (previously adopted) subsidiary motion to Postpone?

If so, and if the Rescind motion was adopted (2/3 vote required), what would be the status of MM?

(I have my own answers - so what else is new? - but let's see where this goes.)

Is the ED/Coordinator a hired hand?  How did she get the job? Paid? Any contract involved?

If yes to the above, this is probably not a parliamentary question. Ask a lawyer.

Co-anything is most likely a fraught idea.  Go here to read all about it.

45 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

So, which one is it?

SSA's bylaws should answer that.  Do they adopt RONR as the parliamentary authority?  If so, they have adopted the Standard order of Business - p. 25, line 32ff, and 353, line 17ff

Hold on a minute here.  If an item (a motion) has been postponed from the, not "a", previous meeting, it was, at least partially, "considered" back then.  It was the pending motion when it was being considered.  The act of postponing then made the motion a general order for the next meeting.  No need to be concerned about some "agenda" -- a list of other motions to be made into general orders by the act of adopting the agenda/list (RONR, page 371). 

If the chairman knows what he/she is doing (or is playing fair), he will reintroduce the postponed motion (no other "reintroduction" is appropriate)  as a general order when the meeting gets to that point in the order of business.  If he doesn't bring it up, raise a point of order to the effect that he should.  It doesn't appear to be possible, by majority, to undo the creation of a general order created by postponement (although that might be a good question for a later time).

General orders are created by postponing motions, "or otherwise" - RONR, p. 359.  The "or otherwises" include adopting an agenda/list, see page 365, line 20ff.  They are in effect, parallel tracks, that work independently.  

SSA:  please take the time to get and carefully read section 41 of RONR.

Either evaporates or forms a hopelessly opaque cloud. 

10 minutes ago, Guest SAA said:

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 

Confirmed. Signed, your friendly neighborhood guru.

10 minutes ago, Guest SAA said:

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 . 

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.

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.

4 minutes ago, Guest Tammy said:

What would be the proper way to conduct the upcoming election to insure that we are compliant beyond reproach? 

Strict adherence to whatever process is (one can only hope) clearly spelled out in your bylaws (no matter what the "subdivision developer" says - do your bylaws (or state law, if appropriate)  really give him/her the authority to hold what sounds like a lot of proxy votes?)

Also RUSH out and buy, for all your board members, copies of

RONRIB:

"Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief", Updated Second Edition (Da Capo Press, Perseus Books Group, 2011). It is a splendid summary of all the rules you will ever need in all but the most exceptional situations. And only $7.50! You can read it in an evening. Get both RONRIB and RONR (scroll down) at this link: 

http://www.robertsrules.com/inbrief.html

Or in your local bookstore.
 

Without seeing your bylaws (NO!, don't post them here, no one will read them...)  is hard so say for sure, but I suppose he could just run for re-election, unless there is some rule that prohibits this.

47 minutes ago, J. J. said:

The COW then drafts a motion on the subject and recommends that back to the assembly. 

Which is what folks tend to do a lot of the time in a less formal manner, anyway.  Much of Parl-Proc just amounts to doing what a reasonable group would do anyway but within a more formalized structure.  It's "Common Sense and Fair Play Codified", a phrase I use when coaching newbies in "good" procedure.

47 minutes ago, Guest MaryAnn said:

Thank you, Jstackpo! She is a power-hungry woman who bullies the secretary and other board members. She does have a copy of Robert's Rules yet she chooses to interpret things in her own way. Thanks again!

 

OK, so YOU get and read RONRIB, particularly the parts about "Point of Order" &c., Chapter 11.   Good Luck next meeting.  Be sure you have some friends along to back you up if you have to appeal the chair's ruling.

RONR (p. 418, line 32ff) is clear that the Secretary retains the ballots under seal (in a safe will do, of course) and then destroys them after the time for a recount can be ordered.  No need to keep them a whole year. The chair is NOT entitled to "see" them -- your secretary (and your husband) are quite correct.

If there was a tie, last October, for one office, there should have been an immediate rerun of the election for the tied position. I hope there was.

In order to encourage your new chair to do things right gift him/her a copy of ...

RONRIB:

"Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief", Updated Second Edition (Da Capo Press, Perseus Books Group, 2011). It is a splendid summary of all the rules you will ever need in all but the most exceptional situations. And only $7.50! You can read it in an evening. Get both RONRIB and RONR (scroll down) at this link: 

http://www.robertsrules.com/inbrief.html

Or in your local bookstore.
 

No requirement to resign to run for another job (unless your bylaws have such a rule) and if Mary doesn't get elected she retains the Secretary job.  She probably should resign if she wins.

Which means if she does win and resigns, there would be a vacancy to fill in her old position, so you might want to alert the Nominating Committee about the possibility.

I have heard, in the dim, dark past, the phrase "God before Country" as applicable.  That is what RONR says, too, under "Optional Headings, page 360.  But in this increasingly secular (and contentious) age, who knows. It is optional and up to the association, I suppose.

Well, "expire annually" seems sufficiently vague (could refer to the date of the "Annual Meeting", for example) that your members might go along with "at the Annual Meeting" as a reasonable interpretation. So your postponed annual meeting would extend the terms in office accordingly.

But you certainly should amend the bylaws to include the "or until..." phrase described on page 573 line 28ff. through page 574.  That will remove any ambiguity.