Weldon Merritt

🙂

I'm disappointed! It doesn't list the order of precedence of the local dog catcher. 😀

For whatever it may be worth, I think that none of the examples in that article are "intrinsically irrelevant negative votes," as the term is used in RONR. Watch for the next issue in which, I hope, my rebuttal will be published.

Certainly looks like it to me, too.

I was about to respond when Dr. Kapur beat me to the punch. I can't improve on his answer, so I will simply concur.

So far as RONR is concerned, no. But your use of "publicly noticed" leads me to think you may be talking about a governmental entity subject to am "open meetings" law. If so, the answer will be found in the law, and not in RONR.

No. Once the motion has been placed before the assembly, the maker has no more control over it than any other member (with the sole exception of being able to ask permission to withdraw it, which the assembly is under no obligation to grant).

No.

If the board members are also members of the assembly (as I understand to be the case), then yes, they can participate as fully as any other regular member.

What do you mean that your bylaws "no longer require [you] to follow parliamentary procedure"? I seriously doubt that your bylaws say anything like, "this organization is not required to follow parliamentary procedure." If you simply mean that your bylaws no longer specify a parliamentary authority, that certainly does not mean that you are not required to follow parliamentary procedure. "A deliberative assembly that has not adopted any rules is commonly understood to hold itself bound by the rules and customs of the general parliamentary law—or common parliamentary law ...—to the extent that there is agreement in the meeting body as to what these rules and practices are." RONR (12th ed.) 1:5.

I concur with with Guest Puzzling and Richard Brown that having an official position for the IPP is a bad idea. The last Dr. John Stackpole, who was one of the most prolific posters here before his death, had a great list of reason why it's a bad idea. In Dr. Stackpole's words: Unless you can guarantee that none of the eventualities listed by Dr. Stackpole will never occur (which, of course, no one can), I strongly recommend that you remove that position from the board at the earliest opportunity.

It's not completely clear to me either, but I think Guest Puzzling may be wondering if there is a way to force a ballot vote even if there is only one nominee and the bylaws allow for acclamation in that circumstance. The answer is "Yes," by nominating someone else (as noted by Richard Brown).

Certainly you can. But that doesn't mean that the member has to comply. Resignation is a voluntary action, and the member is free to ignore your petition.

You can't find anything in RONR because there is no such rule in RONR. Any such rule, if it exists, would have to be in your church's bylaws. You might ask the person who told you this to show you the rule. If they can't, then it probably doesn't exist.

One of the basic rights of membership is the right to make motions. So yes, unless your bylaws or some superior rule restrict that right, members (of the body that is meeting) have a right to make motions regardless of whether the motion is an "agenda item." The only exception would be if the motion is one that requires previous notice (typically, e.g., a bylaws amendment). That does not, however, mean that the motion must be voted on at the same meeting. It must be dealt with in some manner (unless it is legitimately ruled out of order). But that could include actions such as being postponed indefinitely, being referred to a committee with instruction to report at a later meeting, or being postponed to the next meeting, all of which may be accomplished by a majority vote.

More accurately, they are "two forms of one incidental main motion governed by identical rules." RONR (12th ed.) 35:1. As such, either form (to rescind or to amend) can be amended by substituting the other form. 35:2(6).

With Dr. Kapur's clarification, I am now in agreement with him.

Yes; but it seemed to me that Dr. Kapur was referring to meeting 2 as being the preceding meeting at which notice for meeting 3 could be given. But either way, my main point was that valid notice cannot be given at an inquorate meeting. If I missed Dr. Kapur's point entirely, then I apologize.

I think you mean "the preceding meeting." But to answer your question, RONR 40:9 specifies, "a notice ... cannot be validly given." So it seems that those who want to "withdraw" the rule will have to wait for meeting 3 to give notice, and meeting 4 to take the action. And hope that both meetings have a quorum.

Amend your bylaws to allow it.

That's a good point. But if this is a standing committee with ongoing jurisdiction, and they were reporting on something they originated rather than something committed to them, then I don't think "recommit" would be applicable.

You don't, in the minutes of the meeting where the report was submitted. If whoever submitted the report wants to add a sixth point, they should submit a supplemental report at the next meeting.

Guest Mary Hruska, please post your question as a new topic. This thread is over six years old!

Guest LIH, please post your question as a new topic. This thread is more than two years old!

It's not clear whether these would be bylaws changes, or changes to an adopted policy. But either way, the default is that motions are effective immediately on adoption. So if you want to delay the effective date, you will need to include the delay as part of the motion itself (such as by a proviso). Whether you should postpone the changes is a matter that the assembly will have to decide for itself. Perhaps the existing budget could be amended to take account of the changes.