Tom Coronite

A church provides for 2 annual meetings in its bylaws (1 in fall, 1 in winter; 1 financial matters, 1 general matters) This church announced considering choosing a new pastor at its fall annual meeting. They then “remember” that their bylaws mandate that the choosing of a new pastor must be done “by a vote of two-thirds of the members present at a special meeting of the Church duly called for the specific purpose of electing the Pastor.” Would scheduling a special meeting at 11am and the regular annual meeting at 11:30am on the same day be considered one meeting? It seems to me that if the church is still assembled in this room/area, and the only difference is the chair states this meeting is adjourned, now the other meeting will start, it’s still one meeting. Am I wrong?

Considering his "unruly behavior" is via email and not at meetings, perhaps blocking his email address is a way to go? Does he seem like a guy whose behavior would be impacted by a censure? (Rhetorical question there)

Can the appeal be renewed when the amendment is pending at a future meeting? Disregard. I found my answer on p 257 ll 29ff 🙂

"Minutes of one annual meeting should not be held for action until the next one a year later." (P. 95 lines 2-3) (This topic may be moved to the general questions forum)

They’re just having a little good-natured fun over the fact that RONR is the correct abbreviation, rather than RROO.

In addition to what Mr. Katz has explained, if you believe most others are also against it, you could move to adopt the item. If your belief is correct, it will be defeated.

I've not seen it in real life, either, but allow me to try: Our rules stipulate the Financial Secretary will provide monthly reports to the Trustees Board. In real life, there's no need for such frequent reports. If the Financial Secretary requests to be excused from that duty, but the Trustees Board would like at least to have quarterly reports, perhaps they could amend her request in that way?

Treat it like any other motion to amend something previously adopted. The one who desires to “clarify or amend” should make a motion at the next meeting to do exactly that. There shouldn’t be any re-writing of the minutes in between the meetings, if that’s what anyone is suggesting. That the minutes have not yet been approved is irrelevant. Besides, those minutes likely should be approved at the next meeting before any motion to amend the motion in question.

Yes it is still there. The link works from my desktop, but not from my iPad. No idea why it's different on each device.

It appears they’ve removed the file.

In the minutes? If so, rather than get your counter-points in, removing extraneous info from the minutes might be helpful. As a pastor who has recently submitted his resignation, I would never expect my reasons for leaving (other than this is the right decision for us at this time) to be part of the official record of the meeting, especially if they are borderline accusations.

Maybe that's supposed to read "... be substituted WITH a motion to dismiss..." ??

I'm guessing if the board adopted the motion to accept his resignation, the motion was to do just that, and not to validate his stated reasons for leaving. But, if you still feel a need to enter into the record your misgivings about his stated reasons, perhaps you could request that the board enter your objections into the minutes.

But we are told in the original post that this is the membership's AGM, not a special meeting called in order to instruct the board.

Yes! I learned something today, thank you. Good thing you're a copyeditor and I am not. 🙂

Maybe electing other people would disavow them of that notion.

Have you considered simply holding an election to fill the vacancy?

At another meeting? Yes.

If you're approving reports that ought not be approved, you're certainly expecting a majority to vote yes. If I were an officer in your group, and submitted a report, and then you voted on my report that I'd submitted, and a majority voted NOT to approve it, what then? Was my report not submitted? Of course it was. Are you rejecting it and telling me to do it over? No, because it's my report of what happened while doing the duties of my office. By voting on these reports, where voting no is basically not an option, you're not doing much of anything. You're exercising rules of formality > rules of order.

OK, good. Thank you.

My bad. Thought we were just joking around a bit. Didn't mean any offense.

Thank you, Josh Martin. I understand.

"Begs the question" is another. 😉

I am perhaps filling in too many informational gaps on my own, but it seems that the overall question, raised by the OP's secretary's claim, is: Is RONR binding, or a guide only? If RONR's been adopted, it's binding, is my point. Josh Martin raises a valid question as to whether the OP's group has actively adopted it, or had it foist upon them by the state. As Mr. Martin indicates, it's probably the latter. But does that make RONR any less binding? Regardless of how RONR came to be authoritative for this group, it does seem to be authoritative by my reading of the original post. I certainly understand the distinction Mr. Martin is making, but either way, I end up at the same destination.

"When the manual has been thus adopted, the rules within it, together with any special rules of procedure that may also be adopted, are binding upon the body and constitute that body's rules of order." (emphasis added) RONR Introduction, p. xxix, first paragraph. Binding. Ask the secretary to back up the guideline assertion. However, this is a very common sentiment, especially when people don't want to follow the rules. What are you gonna do? I drive in the Boston area; I see people run red lights all the time. 😉