Tom Coronite

What if you don't have them then? It will be harder to recall what was done at the previous meeting as more time elapses. Perhaps it would be better for someone other than the mia secretary to offer a draft at the meeting in a few days. 

Guest CAD, perhaps the heading "Good of the Order, General Good and Welfare, or Open Forum" (page 362) would be of help in your described situation. If so, it would seem such a category of proceedings would happen during a meeting, and not during a recess.

Quote

 

I can't really tell, but I'm working on the assumption that they are standing rules, not bylaws.  Even so, they sound like rules having their application outside the meeting context.  I'm not totally sure on that either, hence why I'm not confident on the conclusion, but that's what it sounds like to me.  

 

yes, you're probably right. Which was why (as I read the OP a couple more times) I deleted the reply you quoted and was going to re-word it, but your above response beat me.

I think you are correct.

"When an assembly wishes to do something during a meeting that it cannot do without violating one or more of its regular rules, it can adopt a motion to suspend the rules interfering with the proposed action..."  (p 260 ll 19-22)

It would seem that overhauling these rules is certainly something you can do without violating any rules. So what would be the purpose of a motion to suspend the rules?

1 hour ago, bmunroe said:

Putting aside the federal labor law issues, what would be the proper motion to suspend our referral rules?  Should this be a motion to rescind the original motion?  A motion to rescind the original motion and all subsequent motions that amended the rules?  Something else? Should the suspension be considered as an amendment to the referral rules and follow those procedures?

Perhaps the way to go would be to (again) amend these rules.

The 1st question in the original post begins with the words "Under RONR..." and Mr. Katz absolutely responded with what RONR says about minutes. As such, I don't see how one can disagree with what he wrote.

If one wants to go above and beyond what RONR requires for minutes content, and can get one's society to agree, then that society's bylaws could call for a complete transcript of every spoken word of each meeting to be recorded for posterity, if that's what the society wants.

9 hours ago, janita said:

If abstentions don't count, are we allowed to change our by-laws so that they do (i.e. so that we would not need a majority of 7 to approve motions)?  Or is this a fundamental democratic convention that we should respect?

It seems to me that if you did put that in your bylaws (which is not a good idea, BTW) you WOULD end up needing 7 affirmative votes to approve motions. A better option is to stick with the provisions of RONR, referenced in the link Mr. Huynh gave you.

For your 1st question, on the minutes, RONRIB gives an example on p147-8.

"Reports were given by President Darian Will, Vice-President Roxana Arthur....Treasurer Jose Rhinehart...."

So it looks like "A report by Treasurer Joe Bag-o-donuts was given" would be a way to go, assuming no motions were in the report.

I would answer "yes" to that last question IF you were to strike the phrase "under board of directors meetings".

Perhaps you have answered your own question.

Q: Are there any rights for this non-member to attend, allegedly, as "simply an observer"?

A: Our bylaws state that a non-member may attend Board meetings

RONR would provide that non-members may attend if the board permits it. But your bylaws apparently go further than that and allow any and all (?) non-members to attend. Are there bylaw provisions restricting their attendance, or requiring the chair to introduce them and state their purpose in attending?

3 hours ago, Guest Motion said:

So say we post a notice on our club bulletin board that our next meeting will involve discussion & a vote to rescind the no smoking motion--and we get a majority vote in favor of rescinding it - is this the correct way to do it?

Or without the previous notice, get enough of the "very upset" people to show up and vote to rescind it, such action requiring a 2/3 vote without previous notice. (Or a majority of your 8000+, which I imagine would be pretty tough to do.)

Yeah, I don't know how my reference came out as p122, should indeed have been p 92 to which I was referring.

Hard to argue with a coin flip.

If the majority of members are "very upset" maybe that will spur them to attend meetings. had they been there, I suppose they would've voted the motion down. But it sounds as if its handling was proper.

2 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

My own view of this is that yes, a member may give notice at this special meeting of intent to make a motion at the next regular meeting in February, and such notice will constitute "previous notice" as defined on pages 4 and 121, assuming, of course, that the member properly describes the content of the motion which he proposes to introduce.

Even if the intent to give previous notice is not included in the call of the special meeting? And if the answer to that question is "yes" is that because of the phrase "...and that require action by the society..." on page 122 lines 2-3? (By that I mean being given notice requires no "action" by the receivers)

At the start of this thread I would've put my money on "no" as an answer to the original question. Now I'm moving toward "yes".

Done that. No difference. No Rank, either.

Oh well, by the time it gets resolved "1stChurch" will probably be a distant memory anyway. At least this digression isn't leaving the OP hanging. :-)

No member title there under edit profile. You don't believe me? ;-)

I don't see title anywhere in the edit profile section. Oh well.

birthday, interests, location, about me. That's all that's there.

I tried to find where to put "formerly 1stChurch" or something like that, as Mr. Mervosh has Professional Registered Parliamentarian two posts up. Couldn't find it. I used the former moniker not in any way to hide, just as a fitting message board name. I felt kind of bad when I saw that wasn't encouraged, so I figured what the heck. :-)

I am looking at "Giving notice of amendments" on page 596, especially lines 27-31.

In our case a complete revision will be contemplated. Does "the notice should fairly inform the members of the changes contemplated" mean the entire revision should be published with the call of the special meeting? 

Additionally (following up specifically on the  "ask for a meeting" part of the OP's question), procedures for requesting a called meeting are likely found in your bylaws, hopefully. It may very well be that one member cannot call for one on his own.

You'd do the same thing(s) you'd do if the motion was defeated 0 to 10, or 3 to 7. Defeated is defeated whether by a tie vote or a larger margin. So you'd probably move on to the next item of business.

It's quite possible the defeated motion could be brought up again at a subsequent meeting.

P 465 ll 30ff states "If a parliamentarian is needed by an organization, the president should be free to appoint one in whom he has confidence. The board or society must approve any fee that will be required, however."

5 hours ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

I can't answer for the authors, but the use of the word "also" seems to equate this rule with the preceding sentence, which clearly refers to all candidates. If you are dropping candidates, then you are holding some kind of runoff election.

4 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

It is not correct. If candidates 1, 2, 3, and 4 are tied for the lowest position, they remain on the ballot, and so do all of the other candidates. This is the case whether or not they have a majority of the votes cast.

OK, I see. Thanks.

3 hours ago, 1stChurch said:

Similarly, if some individuals receive a majority but are tied for the lowest position that would elect, all of them also remain as candidates on the next ballot."

I thought because 1, 2, 3, and 4 are tied for the lowest position that would elect (the 3rd position), "all of them" refers to the "some individuals" who were tied, but not 5 through 9. Is that not correct?

(And yes, assuming 1 through 4 have a majority of votes; if they don't, 1-9 remain as candidates. That's what I thought)

I wonder if the next few lines (21-24) are what the OP is looking for, as it seems the scenario envisioned is 1-4 are tied, not just 3-4. 

"Similarly, if some individuals receive a majority but are tied for the lowest position that would elect, all of them also remain as candidates on the next ballot."

It seems 'all of them" may include 1-4. Of course, it may be different if the tie means they all have a plurality of votes only.