jstackpo

The usual (p. 262) way "suspend" is used is:  "I move to suspend the rule(s) and ...".   When the action contained in the ellipsis is completed (or disposed of) the rule in question, normally not specified, is reinstated automatically.

56 minutes ago, George Mervosh said:

and requiring previous notice of a proposed amendment to the bylaws protect absentees, if there are any, and cannot be suspended when any member is absent.* "  RONR (11th ed.), pp. 263-64

Note the very last phrase - here highlighted.  so if ALL the board members are present you can disregard the 24 hour notice.

Don't make a habit of it, however, or you might come a cropper in the future.

If it is a counted vote, yes.  Otherwise, no.

BTW, why are we adding to a 9 year old thread?  New questions deserve to be a "New Topic", even about old subjects.

Or, since the motion was defeated, anybody can move it again at a later meeting.   The opportunities for "Reconsideration" are quite limited.

State laws dealing with parliamentary procedure are.

What law might you be talking about?

12 minutes ago, Father Cadan said:

A motion to "adopt the budget as distributed" is passed. The treasurer proceeds to write many checks of the budgeted fiscal year. Has the treasurer done something wrong?

RONR doesn't say.  

In the Federal Government budget process there is a distinction between "Authorize" (spending) and "Appropriate" (money).

(At least I think that may be the distinction; I could never keep them straight.  I didn't do budgets in my working career.)

What does your "Alliance" consider "adopt" to mean? Authorize?  Appropriate? Both?  Neither?  Only your association knows for sure. (Like hair color).  Maybe "obligate" is the right word.

9 minutes ago, Father Cadan said:

Please find a better source to quote from.

Read Gary R.'s note just preceding yours.

RONR is a procedural handbook, not a Financial Advisory service.

See RONR p. 561 for the "How to" details.

Since both organizations are surely under various tax exempt laws -- they might even operate under different sets of exemption laws, one "religious" the other "educational" -- you should certainly consult with a lawyer who knows his/her way around those laws.

A shortcut way of thinking (I like shortcut thinking) is to boil down RONR to say:

Bylaws tell "what?"; Rules tell "how?".  And you can suspend the rules.

"Ballot vote" is a what; how you deploy those ballots (separate or all at once) is, well, a how.

What is "reasonable" is for the members attending to decide.  Your remarks are arguments related to reasonableness.  Fine.  Make them at the meeting if the point of order goes to an appeal.

If you think the time is too short, couple of options...

Encourage enough of your friends NOT to show up.  If enough stay away (this is a risk, of course), there will be no quorum, thus no business at the meeting.

or

Show up, then raise a point of order that the time was not "reasonable". If "enough" (i.e. a majority) of the folks at the meeting agree (another risk) that will end things.  'Course, you can also raise the point that the meeting was called improperly -- same risks.

In short:  Democracy is a risky business.  (But we all knew that.)

37 minutes ago, J. J. said:

I my opinion, a parliamentarian should cite sources in a written opinion.  That said, his opinion may be perfectly correct. 

So where's your source? 

😊

17 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

Sunshine Laws, which, with some rare exceptions, require all votes to be in public and by the yeas and nays. 

Under Sunshine laws you are familiar with, do all votes in ExecSess on substantial matters have to be cast in public view, or only the "Final" ("You're fired") vote. 

Example  (a little far fetched):  if the original motion to fire your school administrator included a preamble listing the administrator's various sins, would amendments to that preamble have to be voted on in public?  Or just the end product, the adoption of the main motion, as it was amended in ExecSess?

"Abstention" is well defined as "not voting" so those ballots marked as "abstain" (or whatever, like "a pox on both your houses") are equivalent to blank ballots found in the ballot box, or not returning a ballot at all:  NOT "COUNTED".

Next election just don't include the "Abstain" option.  If somebody says it belongs, ask them where they got that rule?  (Not in RONR, for sure!)

I recently attended a meeting that, for perfectly good reasons and by majority vote, went into Executive Session to consider a "sticky" issue, an issue that, by its nature, had "public" consequences, outside of the meeting, and thus was not covered by any secrecy requirements. (The discussion of the motion remains secret, of course.)

When the time came to vote, the chair insisted that the assembly go out of ExecSess to vote, indeed asserting that it was not proper to vote on any issues when under the Session rules.

Is there any backup for this requirement in RONR?  I could find none; indeed the paragraph on p. 96, lines 9-14 seems to imply that voting in ExecSess is perfectly OK, but does not directly say so. I couldn't find any (other) direct statement that in-session voting was kosher, either.  Are there any?

I understand that some public bodies require by law that "final" votes on issues are required to be taken after the ExecSecc is ended, but such a law didn't apply at the meeting I attended.  Perhaps that is what the chair had in mind, thinking the law did apply.

1 hour ago, Guest Susan said:

When a special meeting is scheduled and the topic is provided, can the board vote on a new topic during that meeting?

No.

This is all nuts.  See RONR pp 553ff for how to form a new association.

In the order you asked...

Immediately after the president declares him/her elected, unless your bylaws say otherwise.

Gracefully step down and go sit with his/her fellow members.

2 hours ago, Leo said:

I don't know. I just didi a cut and paste from a word file and it turned up as it is.

You did a "Screen Shot", not a cut and paste.  The screen shot turned your selected text into a .png (graphic) file.

No, not according to the strict definition on p 371.    The three steps you describe are just parts of an order of business.

It may well depend on the content of what was not (properly) in the posted agenda.   Without divulging private matters, what was missing?

But you still have to have a quorum show up to adopt any amendments, or your "revision".   Free food?  Door prizes? 50-50 raffles?

Illiterate members?   Or, more kindly, visually impaired members?

The "must read if one member requests" rule is on pp. 354 & 474.

No (even in Texas!). 

If there was a motion adopted to include her statement (not a particularly good idea), then the answer is "Yes".  

See page 468ff for what should (and should not) be in minutes.  "Statements" are in the "should not" category.