jstackpo

See your other thread (Thank you for starting a new question in a new topic/thread.)

You could ask, but the person is not obligated to drop out of any of the races in advance.

After the election, if he/she wins two or more races, he can pick the one he wants, and you run the election over again for the position(s) he also won but didn't want.  Do NOT say the runner-up was the (automatic) winner.  There may be very good reasons why that person wasn't elected.

And not counted at all.

Take a look at this link's contents:   https://www.dropbox.com/s/jbcnnjcq5l9eaux/Problems With co-anything.docx?dl=0

to see what a mistake you may have made.

And No it is not proper to invent co-presidents on the fly.  Your bylaws don't say that you can't rob banks, either.

3 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

 

I'm not convinced that the auditor's report necessarily becomes a part of the minutes.

Quite so.  Only the motion to "adopt the report of the auditor (see file No. nnn)" does belong in the minutes.  It is a short motion.

Your logic is quite correct.    All adopted (or defeated, &c) motions are documented in minutes.

If you have time before the meeting comes up, get 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.

It might be just what the parliamentarian ordered. 

Even if you don't have time, get one anyway, for next time.

Time for a new president?

ANY "conversations" should not have been in the minutes, in the first place.

Yes you can amend adopted ("accepted") minutes.  I suggest you amend yours by removing all those conversations, leaving behind only what was done  --  motions adopted, defeated, &c.

In the text found on page 371, lines 25-27  (text that is new to the 11th edition, by the way) we read: 

"In an agenda, often an hour is assigned only to such subjects as the calls to order, recesses, adjournments..."

The difficulty is that a "call to order" isn't an "item of business" (i.e., something the assembly can act on in a meeting) and shouldn't be included in an agenda at all.  See the footnote on page 26. A "call to order" takes place before the meeting begins.

I suppose this could be remedied by dropping "the calls to order" from the quoted text, or by changing "agenda" to "program", the more all-encompassing term.   

I'll leave that decision to the authorship team.

RONR doesn't discuss "conflict of Interest" other than minimally on page 407 as "direct personal interest".

Yours is a legal question and any "conflicts" will have to be considered in terms of your local laws and ordinances.  Ask a knowledgeable lawyer.  (Maybe not the city attorney, but who knows.)

Nothing in RONR says that a non-member is restricted from serving an association in any capacity, including president, &c.  The book does note, page 447, that it is not "usual".

Any firm prohibition would have to found in the association's bylaws.

RONR has no such rule.  Do yours?

Previous notice must include information as to the intended action, as I read your bylaws.

See "Previous Notice" on pages 4, 404, & 596 (line 27).

I presume "Amendment B" is is an amendment to the main motion, which, earlier had already been amended by A.

"Amendment A" is NOT pending - it was, you say, adopted. The decision was made to change (amend) part of the main motion.

You are free to "Call the previous question" (not "motion") on the now pending B alone or on both.  See page 197 for how those two possibilities overlap.

In my opinion, if the committee had done a proper job, they would have indicated all the changes, perhaps (if it wasn't too confusing) via a "red-lined" ("track changes" in Microsoft-speak) document.  This works particularly for a General Revision.

Along with explanatory notes for why the "major" or most important changes were made.

10 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

Wouldn't you save even more time by moving to refer the restaurant question to committee, and seeing if it gets amended to instead appoint a picnic committee?

Only if the Committee was authorized to meet in the restaurant and sample the menu - on the association's dime, of course.

And I would also suppose that the required "full slate" could comprise all but one candidate from the original slate, plus the one new name.

Also page 373 notes "no change can be made..."   That seems about as firm a statement as possible.   Any addition to an (adopted) agenda is clearly a "change".

10 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

Why can’t the member simply make his motion during New Business, after all other items listed on the agenda are completed?

Doesn't the initial adoption of the agenda preclude introducing unagendaed items (without the extra step of suspending rules, &c.) ?  Isn't that what an agenda is for, to specify what will come up? If not, why not?

'Course there might be local rules about this we don't know about.

You don't even have to "ask permission", per the rules in RONR.  You just do it.

However if the agenda (a listing of what motions are to come up under the various headings of the Standard Order of Business - see p. 26) was adopted at the start of the meeting, you would need to either move to suspend the rules and offer your motion (2/3 vote), or move to amend the agenda first to include your motion.  Same result, of course.

5 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

Chair facilitates filling the blank with A, B, or C, as the assembly prefers.  The budget chosen to fill the blank will presumably be the one that comes closest to the general consensus of the goals of the assembly.

Problem there is that the assembly could very well not muster a majority vote for any of the A vs. B vs. C choices.

Then, I guess, it is back to the drawing board, or the Budget &  Finance Committee.

OK, they are your rules, so follow them.

A problem with your bylaw rule is that a "slate" is not defined in RONR  --  it is defined in your bylaws?

RONR, in general, allows for write-in votes but doesn't require that you write in names for all, or even a subset, of the positions.  Or that potential write-in names be endorsed (or nominated) by 10 people.

But clearly, no matter what you mean by a "slate", it does appear that a slate's worth of "alternate candidates" have to be nominated by 10 people.  But the next quoted sentence raises the question of who does the writing "onto the proxy" - the voter when he gets the ballot or the people who prepare the ballots to be sent out.

You, your association collectively, are going to have to figure out what your bylaw means yourself, then amend them to say what you mean.

A treasurer's report should not be moved at all  --  see page 479, lines 5-9  --  by anybody.