Gary Novosielski

My understanding of the definition of "balanced budget" is one in which the income equals the expenditures, so that there is neither a deficit nor a surplus anticipated. Use of money already in the bank is an expenditure, not anticipated income. But as a non-member, my interpretation of what your bylaws mean is of limited (i.e., little or no) value.

I'm inclined to say that the election should be completed as soon as possible. I'm also confused by the statement that this office is not required. Was any decision reached before the election regarding whether to hold the election for this office? Deciding "Oh, never mind." in the middle of an incomplete election seems rather haphazard.

You could propose an amendment that strikes the Standing Committees Article, or changes only the problematic provisions of that article. There's no need to treat it as a complete revision. My point was that the exact wording changes to be made must be stated in the proposed amendment. It is not correct to simply say "Rescind the amendment of April 1st." The logic is that Rescind cannot be used on a motion once it has been fully carried out. Bylaws amendments are considered to be fully carried out as soon as they are adopted.

I'm not sure whether the electronic voting, presuming that is even allowed, would cut off voting at the 8th, but if the material sent with the ballot said that votes after the 8th would not count, a case could be made that someone who missed the 8th date might well presume that their ballot would not count, and would not bother sending it. I don't think that could be remedied by deciding to count ballots up to the 15th after all, since there's no way to know how many ballots might have been abandoned.

How do you pronounce .oOllXllOo.? Just like it's spelled?

Of course.

Technically you can't "repeal" or "rescind" a bylaws amendment. You amend the bylaws again to make it say what you want.

I'm confused. Who is "An organization" if not the members? Who gave notice, and who "provided" time for comments and questions? 1) It's a "have to" thing if your bylaws say so. The procedure for amending the bylaws (presumably found in the bylaws) must be followed. 2) I presume the questions would be answered, and the comments would be considered. Again, it's not clear by whom. Who wrote the amendment? 3) If the rules in RONR apply, this is not true. The motion must be moved and seconded and is then open to discussion, At that time the members may debate, comment, possibly ask additional questions, and something you have not mentioned, they have the right to amend the proposal, within the scope of the previous notice given. Whoever wrote this proposed change, it's not a take-it-or-leave-it deal.

Unfortunately, RONR can't make people do the right thing. Remember, terrible things can be done, even within the rules. E.g., RONR could assist an organization of mass murderers to operate more efficiently if they followed the General's advice.

Hear hear.

I would also note that the chair called the trees, and not the member, ugly and worse.

I'm getting confused between the Chair of the committee, who is subject to removal, or the Chair of the board meeting considering that removal. (OOps, this one was in the editor overnight. It may be untimely.)

In the future, please post new questions as a new topic. Thanks! 🙂 No, that provision cannot be suspended. A ballot must be held, and someone else could conceivably be elected by write-in votes. If you like, you can amend your bylaws to add ...In the event that there is but one nominee for an office, the chair may declare that nominee elected to that office by acclamation.

Hmmm. Well, I forgot to mention that we rarely used informal discussion in the absence of a motion, but I can see it as a vehicle for the chair to inject ideas. In our case, since the President was an ex-officio member of all committees, my preferred method would be to raise such matters at standing committee meetings. Yes, the footnote does say that the chair has the right to make motions, which strikes me as an odd place to put that information, rather than on the actual list of differences. Principles of interpretation would suggest that the footnote overreaches a bit. Even in a large assembly, the chair has the right to make a motion, but should not. So I'm not sure the footnote extends beyond what's already true. In any case, if asked, I would recommend to chairs of small boards to avoid making motions. I understand that under small board rules the chair's unique role is blurred to an extent, but I think the role benefits from some distinction. Essentially, the chair is not just another member, and avoiding the making of motions helps, in my view, to set the chair apart to a certain extent. Formal impartiality, desirable as it may be, is perhaps an unaffordable luxury in small groups, where the number of heads that are presumably better than one can often benefit from one more. But I think that's an argument for participating in debate more than for making motions.

That has been my experience. The board of ed I served on and ultimately presided over, used small board rules. As chair. I often participated in debate, and routinely voted on all resolutions, though by custom my name was called last. State regulations required roll-call votes on motions other than purely procedural ones, and also required seconds and the recording of the seconders' names in the minutes. But I never saw a case of the chair making motions, (although I did assume some, where appropriate). And since the list on p. 488 does not list the making of motions by the chair, I have assumed that it would be improper.

I can't elaborate much, but it's beginning to look like the problems I've had are related to quotations. I will sometimes quote a message and then edit the quotation in the editor, to add emphasis or delete non-essential portions. I'm not sure if it's related but I'm starting to focus on that. Often, quotations will end up looking fine in the editor but look odd after posting, with lots of extra white space above, and a missing top border, and sometimes with single-digit numbers in the left margin. It's usually impossible to go back and edit these. Unlike Richard, I don't think I have experienced being able to edit but then unable to submit. When it happens to me, I'm simply not able to get back into the editor. The Edit link appears but simply doesn't work. The mouse pointer, which normally changes from an arrow to a pointing finger when hovering over an active link, just stays an arrow, and clicking the link does nothing.

That makes sense. If it were actually read to mean nothing could be Reconsidered for six months, it would have the effect of preventing Reconsideration entirely, since under existing rules in RONR it cannot be moved more than a day later, and often less. And it certainly could not be moved after six months. It would probably be worth the effort to fix the language in the bylaws. But I agree with Mr. Martin that a rule preventing renewal of a defeated motion is in the nature of a rule of order, which could be suspended by a 2/3 vote, allowing the motion to be taken up. I'd also note that renewal refers to the making of the same motion. If the Board wanted to consider a different motion from the recommendation that it rejected, no rule would prevent that. The same would apply if the Board did not consider and reject the recommendation but simply failed to act on it by not making a motion at the time

Yeah, I've used that method as well. If it works better, I'll switch to it more often. Edited to add: Which it apparently does.

I'm similarly inclined, presuming that is what the bylaws mean, or better yet, actually say. 🙂

Thanks. I also agree that an organization may adopt dumb ideas. When they do so, they stray beyond the borders of what RONR has to say on the matter. My response was offered under the assumption that the main purpose of this forum was to explain what RONR has to say on this and other matters.

The above message is not editable, and appears to have some strange thing wrong with the quote. I think these are related. It seems to occur after I quote a message and then edit down the quote to the most relevant part.

Oh, yes, I would agree that such dramatic outbursts are commonly intended to create drama rather than to request to be excused from a duty. And if the desired drama is achieved, such fist pounders are very likely to repeat the performance the next time they do not get their way. I've also seen it several times, and I can confirm that an effective way of putting a stop to it is to immediately move to accept the resignation. I've actually done it, and before my motion was seconded, the would-be resignee responded, "Hang on, hang on! I'm just saying that this is not right." (And never pulled that stunt again, to my knowledge.)

An ad-hoc committee ceases to exist when its task is completed. This normally means when it rises and reports to the parent body. It doesn't matter whether the parent body adopts, rejects, or simply fails to act on the recommendation, or disposes of it in some other way. Beyond that, there are no formal next steps required. The term Reconsider has a highly specific parliamentary meaning that I suspect does not match what you mean when you say "according to the bylaws", so it's up to your organization to determine the meaning. If a decision "needs to be made", and that decision is within the authority of the Board as set forth in the bylaws, then I suppose the Board should make it. Whether the matter was ever considered by a committee, does not limit the ability of the Board to deal with it, if the rules in RONR apply.

There is a difference between a term and term limits. Term limits typically set a limit on the total number of terms (or the number of consecutive terms) that an elected person may serve. If the bylaws set terms, but not term limits, a person may be reëlected to as many terms as the electorate wishes. But if a person has reached the limit on the number of terms set forth in a term limit rule in the bylaws (serving more than half a term counts as one term) then that person is not eligible for election, and therefore may not be nominated, may not be elected, and any write-in votes for that person are counted as illegal votes. It makes no difference if a majority at the meeting want this person to serve another term. A rule on term limits in the bylaws may not be suspended even if the vote is unanimous. The only way around this is to amend the bylaws, by carefully following the rules in the bylaws on how they can be amended.

Well, they save time only if there are no corrections. If there are, then there must first be a request to remove approval of minutes from the consent calendar. And then where does it go? It surely should not go after the consent calendar is complete. Minutes are put first for a reason.