jstackpo

I've been there (haven't we all?) but if the motion is anything greater than trivial I will ask the chair to please state the motion, as a favor to me as secretary and for the minutes. Or I will suggest "my" wording.  Not infrequently, someone else will come back with "But that's not what I meant to have us do" (or the like)  and things then get straightened out.  Assume nothing!

Takes a little longer at the time but saves tons of time when the minutes come up for approval next meeting.

Please quote the exact words in your bylaws -- all of the relevant ones -- that describe the term of office of the pres and directors.

And the secretary, as does any member, has the right to ask the chair to state, or restate, any motion exactly so the correct text will get into the minutes -- page 40.  This will assure the maker of the motion that his/her motion is what is discussed and recorded.

2 minutes ago, Guest Catb said:

adjourn immediately.

So it goes...   (Makes for short meetings, anyway.)

26 minutes ago, Quest said:

Explain appeal

See RONR, p. 255ff.

13 minutes ago, Quest said:

Since it is likely this event was recorded in the minutes should that be when the POO is raised? When the minutes are presented for approval? 

No. The minutes should describe what happened warts and all, and the approval is the association's collective endorsement that they are a correct description.

I suppose the best point to raise your "no quorum/invalid committee formation" point is when some business relating to the committee comes up.

36 minutes ago, Guest Stephen Powell said:

The motion passed changing a policy that had existed for 30 years.  

If you are not happy with this (proper) outcome, propose to (re-)amend the policy document with a text more to your liking.  And rally YOUR friends around to all show up to vote for YOUR motion.

Amending the established policy is a form of "Amend Something Previously Adopted" (RONR, p. 305) so a notice of your motion will get you a lower adoption vote threshold.

The standard order of business -- RONR, page 26  --  shows reading and approval of minutes as the first item of business.

Welcome to the club.

Well, all the ones who are at the meeting anyway.

(We parliamentarians are annoyingly pedantic sticklers for precise language.  Sorry!)

22 minutes ago, Nosey said:

Thank you. I’m not sure how far it will get me.  I have complaints about her and she has flatly plainly said that she does not care.

Time for a new chair!

You can remove her from presiding for  one meeting by a 2/3 vote  at that meeting to suspend the rules.  The vice-chair will then take the job.  RONR, page 651ff.

It is unfortunate about the non-selectee raising a public fuss, rather than coming to the Board more discreetly,  but...

Presuming that your bylaws allow for no other exceptions to the "must have been a coach or an assistant, unless..." rule, (I haven read your bylaws, of course, but you might want to do so (again) ), it would appear that the the fusser is correct and your choice for Head Coach is not eligible to hold that job.    So you will have to return to the drawing board and make another selection.  (You are not obliged, of course, to select the fusser.)  Might be a good idea to solicit another round of letters of intent for the one unfilled Coach position.  Perhaps no past coaches or assistant coaches will apply, and you can re-select the same person as first time around.

The only difficulty with this plan is if there is any contract (salary-?) involved between the organization and the person you originally did select.  If so consult with a lawyer for help.  RONR can't help in that aspect.

However... unless the association has somewhat unusual requirements that ANY business to come up MUST appear in an approved agenda, there is nothing to prevent the proponent of an item which was removed from the agenda (over the proponent's objections) from simply moving the item under New Business.

A resolution is just a motion that has moved uptown and put on fancy dress.  Commonly written out, rather than just spoken at a meeting. p. 105.

At least you seem to be better off than the Republicans, with their 9th district "difficulties".

Give the chair 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.

If he/she reads it (good luck!) it might start to make a difference.

One special rule:  the non-member members of the committee need the approval of the (real) members before they can start to work.  See RONR, page 174.

Right.   ALL of the list of business to be considered is the single (or multiple) items of business in the call.

Actually, there is no need to "adopt an agenda" for the meeting -- the item(s) in the call to the meeting is the whole works.

Here's my opening paragraphs when talking to a workshop of interested newbies...

Why use “Parliamentary Procedure” (sometimes AKA “Robert’s Rules” or “RONR”) at all?

It is fair play and common sense codified.  It supports and balances the (sometimes conflicting) rights of the organization, of the members present, of the members absent, of the majority to decide, of the minority to be heard, etc.  It is a set of “good behavior in meetings” rules – like an etiquette book.  Also it’s a good set of “tools” to use to run a meeting efficiently and fairly.  It also has a very long history – it works.

Further, it allows you to get what you want out of a meeting.  If you are a member, what you want would be to have your proposal(s) given a fair hearing and acted upon.  Also, to get out in two hours or less.  If you are the chairman running the meeting, what you want would be to look good when it is all over – no “partisanship” accusations and plenty of kudos for being efficient and fair. Also to get out in two hours or less.

That is a tall order for a bunch of rules in a book that most people haven’t read, let alone own: Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR), 11^th Edition.  Fortunately, those rules, as noted, are what a fair-minded person would expect them to be (except for some intricate situations, which is why there are professional parliamentarians around and available – end of commercial).   The rulebook is, as noted, like a toolbox; it contain the formal procedures to do what you would want to do in a meeting.  A rather large toolbox, perhaps unfortunately.  But help is available...

"Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief" (RONRIB), Second Edition, is an excellent extraction from the full toolbox, describing the tools on the top shelf of the box. It is a splendid summary of all the rules you will really need in all but the most exceptional situations.

What follows, then, is mainly for the chairman, as it is his/her job to follow and enforce the rules during the meeting.  The chairman ought to know what is in that toolbox and how to use at least the tools on the top shelf, both for himself and to help the members.  We can begin with some really basic rules on the top of the top shelf.

32 minutes ago, J.A.Krampitz said:

Has anyone experienced this?  Comments, please.

Oh, yes...   You are, quite properly, proposing a "General Revision"  --  use that term instead of "full substitution" and you will keep the parliamentary gods at bay  --  then turn to page 593 and read important details bout the process.

Do you have some more general provision in the bylaws about filling vacancies?  If so, do what they say.

If not, just hold an election to fill the vacancy (RONR, page 467).

Give your iMessage friend 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.
 

1 hour ago, MikeLSJC said:

Further, his term ends at our next meeting in a few weeks.

As a "Welcome to your new Honors and Responsibilities" gift for your soon to be new Chairman, give 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.

And get copies for your Board members, too.

FAR from "indelicate, impolite, presumptuous, self-serving, or rude" it exhibits an enthusiastic support of the aims of the organization! 

Are you more comfortable if it is renamed "volunteering"?

I'm not sure what you are asking for; RONR's "Small Board" rules start on page 487.  Note that the use of the SBRules is not an option, per the phrasing there (even though page 16 says "small assembly" rules do need to be formally adopted).    I think the distinction (per Dan the Man, some time ago) is that for small boards the simpler rules are automatically applied, while for small association meetings, they have to be formally adopted.

Obvious Examples:  Entering into the debate (pro or con) on a motion; calling upon speakers who favor the (the chair's) opinion systematically, rather than alternating, when possible; basically, doing much of anything other than just presiding and ruling;

Board:  No.

In RONR's terms "subcommittees" are entirely creatures of the association that created the committees, and subcommittees, in question.  They don't have bylaws of their own.

You clearly (obscurely to me) have some sort of other arrangement set up by you parent organization and the "subcommittee". 

Maybe others here can offer help; my only suggestion is to seek out an experienced parliamentarian to read your (parent-?) association's bylaws, and your own, and figure out how to answer your question based on the jurisdictional relationships involved.