jstackpo

An initial aside:  I trust that the Board does NOT vote on the salary, perks, &c, of the employees.

RONR doesn't define or deal with an "order" to employees or members.  The board could, by majority vote, request or move, I suppose, that a board member become a committee (of one) and to report more fully on the relevant "affiliate" matters, but your employment agreements might get in the way of the Board requesting an employee to be more informative -- kind of micromanaging, I suppose.

And since, you say, the board member and the employee are one and the same, it seems hopelessly convoluted to me.  Many organization say, in bylaws, that an employee cannot be a board member.  Might be a good idea to follow their lead.

No violations of Parl-Law no matter which approach you take, unless there are penalties for not following the details of the letter.  But don't forget, each individual board member has the ability to simply not approve (in whole or in part) of whatever you put before him/her by refusing to sign it.  So give the board members the opportunity to discuss what they might be dragooned into signing, and find out if any particular portion sticks in their craw. 

I went to the AAM (American Alliance of Museums, right?) webpage to see how they did things of the sort you might be contemplating.  But the bylaws were behind a "members only" wall; no luck. (I'm not a hacker enough to get through.)

You might look there, << https://www.aam-us.org/ >> ,however, presuming that you are a member and can see the bylaws/

Rules for or against none of what you plan is found in RONR, but it sure would be a good idea to share a draft of your letter of commitment, if for no other reason to get folks comfortable with it before they are asked to sign on -- and look for hidden glitches!

If you intend that there are, or should be, "consequences" related to membership perks and the like if one declines to sign, this might very well require bylaw provisions to spell out.

38 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

Edited to add:  btw, as I believe someone said, if the bylaws don't contain a provision for filling vacancies, they you must have a new election to fill the vacancy.

And that election takes place in a general membership meeting, with a previous notice that there will be an election. page 575.

UNLESS the board has "full power and authority between meetings of the membership", page 467,  (check the bylaws), in which case the board can fill the vacancy, (but not the president alone).

1 minute ago, Guest Fighter for Rights said:

Can the president vote for or against his own removal?

Yes, since he/she is a member of the board.   That makes it a tad more difficult to remove the president, of course, but it is supposed to be.  You don't want to go around removing presidents for light and transient reasons.  That should encourage you to elect a better one next time around.

Yes, although an individual cannot "force" a ballot vote on an issue, or in elections.  It requires a majority vote to replace a show of hands with a secret ballot.  See page 283ff.

Are you sure your bylaws don't already require a ballot vote for elections?  Worthwhile to check.

Do the bylaws specify what body, or perhaps who, does set the dues?

If the dues amount is in the bylaws it will require a bylaw amendment to change them. Same question, then, but relative to amending the bylaws.

Since you are, I take it, a Member of the Board, you are entitled to vote on ALL Board matters, including filling the vacancy.

Your management is dead wrong (unless there is some special rule in your bylaws).  Ask the management to show you the rule preventing you from voting -- I'll bet they won't be able to.

No need for a "special" exec session.  Any group can close their meetings to all non-member outsiders.    Even though some folks may be members of the overall association, they are not members of the board so can be excluded.

Since the ExecComm has legitimately adopted something on behalf of the association -- presuming they had the authority to do so -- the motion you want to use is Rescind/Amend Something Previously Adopted, p. 305ff.   Note that adopting that motion requires a 2/3 vote, unless you give a clear and reasonably explicit previous notice (p. 121).  If you do then a majority will carry the day. See p. 305 for further details, some of which may be important in your particular context.

Yes, unless the ExecComm is given EXCLUSIVE (by the bylaws) power or control over the matter involved in the vote.

This presumes your ExecComm is actually a Board, in RONR's sense -- p. 485.

You are entirely welcome.  Cumon back, 'hea?

2 hours ago, A Brown said:

A Point of Order will be raised at the time of discussion stating that they are out of scope due to not meeting the 30 day requirement.

A point of order is entirely proper, but you have the wrong reason:  The lack of notice is a clear violation of member's rights: everybody has the right to know about the pending bylaw amendments.

2 hours ago, A Brown said:

What happens at that point if they are not tabled or postponed indefinitely?  What are the consequences if a vote is taken anyway?

The motion to amend the bylaws is simply out of order and should not be considered at all.  No call to table or postpone it.

A vote (if adopted) will create a continuing breach of order (RONR, p. 251)

2 hours ago, A Brown said:

Also, with the way the bylaws are worded, I am taking this to mean that the proposal itself (meaning the red-line draft & rationale) has to be included with the notice. 

Either that or a clear and exact statement of the purpose and content of the proposed amendment.  RONR, p. 121ff.

If you don't think the notice met this criterion, raise a point of order.

56 minutes ago, Guest Gueat M said:

Believe it or not the bylaws are silent on how the deacon board meetings are run.

Just business meetings are mentioned.

Do those bylaws even mention that there IS a Board of Deacons?  How are the Deacons selected?  Do the Bylaws say, somewhere, that Robert's Rules is the parliamentary authority for business meetings of all sorts?

50 minutes ago, Guest Guest M said:

Pastor is Charman and president of the board.

Do the bylaws give him/her the authority to disallow "New Business", unless, presumably, he/she introduces it?

And, just out of idle curiosity, what variety of church, denomination, are we talking about?

Under RONR the moderator/chairman/presiding officer has no authority to "disallow" anything (that would be proper to bring up in the first place), particularly ahead of time.

Perhaps church rules are different, but that seems pretty extreme.

Never heard of such a thing.  As one of the former participants in this forum would respond, somewhat unfelicitously: "They're your bylaws, you tell us!" ☹️

I suppose if the general membership required the board to meet -- to consider some specific business, as Special Meetings are supposed to -- the board members could just not show up - no quorum, no business.  Or meet and immediately adjourn.

Seems a completely toothless provision.

Actually...  since an "Agenda" is simply a list (at least in the context of ordinary meetings) of specific items of business to be brought up which, by virtue of being listed, become "General Orders"  (RONR, page 371), "New Business" is not something that would be included in such a list in the first place. Its absence means nothing; indeed its inclusion would be an error indicating a lack of understanding of proper procedure. The standard order of business (page 26) includes a place for "New Business", after "General Orders".    You can make your new motion after the agenda items are taken care of quite properly as New Business.

11 minutes ago, GGuidish said:

I believe you can motion the same motion at every new meeting you want under new business. If it gets support, then the rule changes, 

Correct, provided each new meeting is a new Session (see page 81ff) which is the usual situation for "ordinary societies", as AK noted.  It might not be so for, say, municipal council meetings -- check the statutes, if appropriate.

And while we are being kind and offering thoughtful suggestions, let us urge Trevor to stop using the infelicitous (and mathematically ambiguous) phrase "2/3 majority".   "2/3 Vote" will do just fine.

Your bylaws should (or will have to) define the terms of a "suspension".   See footnote on p. 6.

1 hour ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

The language suggested on page 574 relates entirely to removal of officers from office, and cannot be adjusted in any way to relate to expulsion from membership.

Oops, right.  I misread "expulsion" by (mentally) adding "from office" in the original.

Looks to me that p. 574 and pp. 653-4 go hand in hand.

The page 574 material (new to the 11th edition) serves as an expansion of the more concise material on 653-4.  They both present the same rule, of course.

Well, take a look at pp. 574 for a way to phrase bylaws that will allow you to bypass Chapter 20.

May be just what you are looking for.

Well... that is a little tricky.  What do your bylaws say IS the procedure for expulsion?   (Or are you making this up ["assume"] as you go along?)