Rev Ed

I have seen By-laws that state it's three meetings in a one year period without 'valid' reason. Normally that would mean you are able to attend but didn't bother to attend. Being sick or at work would normally be acceptable reasons.

That would be nice, but when it comes to condominiums, I know a thing or two about some of the 'tricks' that can be played (and yes, I live in a condominium.)

And if the Board starts claiming that they are holding all their votes in Executive Session then you need new directors, and/or a clause in the By-laws limiting when the Board can doe things in secret.

If you read the whole section you are discussing (page 485 line 30 to page 486 line 9), this does not include Standing Committees, and is where the Board is essentially allowing those Committees to do some of the work of the organization on behalf of the Board. Although pages 495 and 496 suggests that non-assembly members should be appointed by the President with approval from the specific assembly as J.J. states. As such, I stand corrected.

For meetings, RONR has these issues covered. As for administration issues (i.e. issues related to duties outside a meeting) it is up to the organization, through it's By-laws to decide who takes over and when. That's why I don't like it when the By-laws say that the Treasurer and another officer must sign cheques instead of two officers (or two members authorized by the Board) as what happens when the Treasurer is on holiday?

But J.J., page 174 talks about non-members being people who or not members of "the assembly or the society". The phrase "or the society" would mean that general, non-Board, members can be appointed to a Committee by the President, without Board approval. If that were not the case, then RONR would not include the "or the society" clause.

But, it talks about "non-members" not what type of "non-members". It's how you choose to interpret the term "non-members". Just because the Committee reports to the Board does not, necessarily, mean that non-members of the Board cannot be appointed by the President as I read "non-members" from page 174 to mean "non-members" of the Society. And we would have to also look at past history of the organization. If the custom is for the President to appoint anyone, Board member or general member, to a Committee, it is the custom that would have to be changed, not the people the President is appointing.

But that would not stop the President from appointing a general member to this Committee.

Now if the member sends out a letter or email asking the group to approve the motion, the group is free to make its own decision - they could approve the motion (with someone else moving the motion), or vote it down, or do nothing.

I have to agree with others - the Parliamentarian only has duties at a Board meeting and they are limited. However, I see no reason why a Parliamentarian, especially when dealing with a novice group (i.e. novice with how to conduct a meeting) should not be made available to members outside the meeting to assist with preparing for meetings. Perhaps, if the group is novice enough, the Parliamentarian could be contracted to provide assistance through meeting with the members outside of a formal meeting, such as a training session. While not a requirement, anything that helps members be better informed at at meeting and helps make the meeting run more efficiently, are good things.

To me both statements are equally specific. How is it that "Members of the assembly" is less specific than naming a specific person? However, based on the plural use for the appointment by the President and the singular use for the members, I am going to say that the singular out ranks the plural but that the By-laws should be amended to clear up the issue.

Yes you can still hold meetings. But try a bit harder to find a volunteer. I am certain one will step up eventually.

The specific statement would take precedence over the more generic statement. But the better option would be to amend the By-laws to make the two sections say the same thing.

In other words if notice is going to count as being informed through the newsletter then not only do the By-laws need to be amended but the amendment should also make it clear that the newsletter should have the notice on the first page and in a way that people will see it easily.

I will second what Josh stated and add that burying it in the newsletter certainly doesn't sound like the Board is even following the intent of providing notice - so members know that there is a meeting. The newsletter is a good way of reminding members of the meeting, but is not necessarily the same thing as providing notice.

Well you could read Chapter XX of RONR, after checking the By-laws of the church, to discipline the member who discussed th issue outside the meeting.

Well, I guess the person moving to approve the recommendations of the investigative committee could be called the accuser. But even then that doesn't mean the person agrees with the recommendations but simply that he/she wants a resolution.

Or the Board could simply adopt a motion to amend something previously approved in order to amend the proposed budget prior to the membership approving it.

If the President has the power to appoint someone then yes, but check the By-laws to make sure that the President really has the power to do so. But you would not be appointed to a two year term but to the remainder of the term of the position you are appointed to. So if the previous person had done six months of the term then you would only be able to do 18 months - or the duration of the term.

Yes, but with the President, the Vice president should automatically take over the duties of the President until the President can resume his or her duties.

Firstly, other than temporarily remove the Chairman (President) from chairing the meeting, do the By-laws allow the Board the power to suspend a member of the Board? If not then the Board doesn't have the power to do so. If suspended, the President's duties would be handled by the 1st Vice President.

RONR does not care about 'reservations'. If the member has any doubts about passing the motion (by voting yes) then the member should either abstain or vote no. Plus, prior to voting, there should be some debate - as such the member should have raised any 'reservations' during debate. The member would also have other options, such as moving that the motion be referred to a Committee or that the motion be postponed to the next meeting so members have a chance to think about the motion. But the member saying yes would mean that I would count it as a yes vote and move on.

Nothing in RONR prohibits a husband and wife from serving on the Board at the same time. Only the By-laws or applicable statute (law) can prohibit the situation.

You keep having votes until someone wins. It's that simple! Really, it is that simple. And no candidate is removed from the ballot unless the By-laws specifically states otherwise. Sometimes after a second ballot you may have a candidate or two who may voluntarily have themselves removed - although they officially stay on the ballot, sometimes some candidates who are out of contention may decide to tell people to support another candidate to help get a resolution. And unless the By-laws specifically state otherwise, a candidate needs to receive a majority vote to get elected.

No, any member may remind the rest of the Board to review documents prior to a meeting, although that should be common sense. But there is nothing in RONR to specifically allow a member to do so, or to stop them from doing so. It is just a 'friendly reminder' as part of a discussion between two or more people outside a meeting. Nothing wrong with that. As others have said, I have no idea what "Directing the Minutes" means. Then again, only decisions made DURING a meeting go into the Minutes, not debate during a meeting, and discussions outside a meeting (either orally, by snail mail, by e-mail, or fax, or any other form of communication) should certainly not be contained in the Minutes. Could it be that the Recording Secretary is putting too much information into the Minutes?