Tom Coronite

Discussion normally would not be included in minutes. Minutes are a record of what was done, rather than what was said.

Minutes should, indeed, be taken of an executive session, recording what was done.

Agreed, but it's a lot easier to reference something prior if it's kept. Old emails tend to get deleted, or at least lost in the vast trash folder.

I wonder if these emails are "kept in a substantial book or binder."  (p. 468 l. 20)

IMO it seems problematic that you refer to a resource that notes an assembly may add the words "of those present" or "of the entire membership" (which is certainly true) but your group uses a third option of "of the quorum present." As above posts have noted, that phrase is vague, open to differing interpretations, not in RONR, and not in the reference you posted.

the addition of the word "quorum" seems to be at the root of your group's issues. Once you have determined a quorum exists at the start of the meeting, (assuming it isn't lost later) you probably shouldn't have to focus on the issue of a quorum later, while voting or doing something else.

Even without a quorum, a scheduled or called meeting could have been held. You just wouldn't have been able to do much. There should still be minutes of such a meeting, although they would be very brief, and would not contain discussion content.

Majority vote with notice, for a council of 7, means more yes votes than no votes, provided previous notice of the motion has been given. Even a 1-0 vote would suffice.

Majority vote Vote of a majority of the entire membership, for the same council, means that there must be at least 4 yes votes, even if all 7 don't vote, and there is no requirement that advance notice be given that the motion will be made.

Maybe it's just me, but rather than just striking "of/by the Quorum present" I'd favor striking the entire quoted passage. It seems the defaults in RONR should cover it.

"Fifty one percent (51%) of the Board of Directors shall constitute a Quorum for the transaction of business at any meeting of the Board of Directors. Unless otherwise specified, a majority vote of the Quorum present shall determine the outcome of issues brought before the Board of Directors."

Will the agenda be up for adoption at the start of the convention? If so, perhaps it could be amended to put the bylaws question before the election.

Thank you for the helpful and educational insights!

The video I was watching presented a scenario where a member is unclear on exactly what the debate is about. The presenter stated one would make a parliamentary inquiry to have the chair restate the motion. I suppose the scenario is one where the discussion has gone off track somewhat, and it's unclear what the assembly is discussing.

I was surprised to see it explained as a parliamentary inquiry, expecting it would be more of a question of privilege.

As an example of what I have in mind, suppose the discussion gets a bit sidetracked with a pending motion of "let's paint the church red" as people discuss the cost of paint, which leads to a discussion on the budget, which leads to talk of amending the budget. Typical church meeting.

So I haven't exactly been paying attention, hear these other issues, and am confused as to what exactly is the pending motion. I would, therefore, raise __________?

Watching a video on parliamentary procedure raised this question for me:

During debate on a motion, I am confused as to what the actual wording of the motion is, so I need clarification. Am I raising a question of privilege? Parliamentary inquiry? Something else?

At first I thought the above postbox Guest Student was suggesting an adjourned meeting to enable proxies. Now I get that it's a way to increase attendance, potentially. So I edited this post.

4 hours ago, Guest w_w said:

Thanks all for your comments and help, this is confusing.  The reason we were doing a special meeting was to try and handle this as professionally as we could and not embarrass someone in front of all the members.  However, if we can not call a special meeting as stated above (without going through a trial) than it appears to me that per Roberts Rules a motion to remove the president can be made at a regular meeting and is subject to a 2/3 vote of the executive board.  Would that be correct?

I believe we could still motion to got into executive session where the motion to remove the president can be made?

 

 

Why is it expected the members would not be at a special meeting, but would be present at a regular meeting? Or am I misunderstanding what you meant in the line I bolded?

37 minutes ago, Marica said:

I believe "Preparation" (beginning p.455) and "Opening of the meeting" (p. 457) provide details on what needs to be included in the "pre-planning" and how that rolls out at the meeting.

You might be referring to a publication other than RONR.

If RONR is your parliamentary authority, and absent any rule to the contrary, only members are allowed to vote. So you don't need to specify that it's only members who can vote. Often adding that language creates ambiguity. Review the reference jstackpo notes and just go with the wording RONR has there. If it's a 2/3 vote you want, just say that. Strike the language about who's doing the voting.

Most likely, the information you're considering shouldn't be in the minutes. The "brief discussions about estimations" don't belong in the minutes, so later-found info that illuminates those discussions needn't be included, either. Your minutes should be a record of what was done at your meetings, not what was said.

9 hours ago, Guest Guest said:

Our by-laws state we do not need a ballot if running uncontested, slate can be accepted by acclamation. I keep seeing that the Chair should ask for further nominees before declaring acceptance of slate...however, per our by-laws, we’ve already passed our deadline for nominations, does she still need to ask for further nominees?

You're probably referring to Page 435. If "slate" refers to the nominating committee report, after the report has been presented and before elections take place, "the chair must call for further nominations from the floor."

But, as noted by Guest Who's Coming to Dinner, your bylaws would govern if, indeed, they set a deadline and/or prohibit nominations from the floor. But don't mistake "deadline" for the timeframe in which a nominating committee prepares and presents its report.

That should work, as JJ noted.

Why is the information irretrievable? Is it because the minutes are being approved several months after the meeting? Or maybe the secretary didn't hear who made the motion? RONR gives advice on how to handle such situations, to prevent future similar situations.

Oh, for sure.

29 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

Well, I think that does indeed occur, but there are also organizations with actual membership meeting which the board mistakenly thinks they run.

These types of topics/issues always make me wonder how many organizations in actuality have two types of board meetings: one where only the board meets, and one where the general members are allowed to attend and address the board. They refer to the latter as a "membership meeting."

I'm just curious as to how this works. Are you (Guest Susan Robinson) saying at today's meeting, the minutes for today's meeting are read and approved right then and there? If so, how are the minutes complete if the meeting is still going on? Or are you approving them after the meeting, in which case it's outside the meeting? Either way seems problematic. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding something.

What happened likely would be recorded in the minutes. If you were voted in in October, presumably, that vote would be recorded in the October minutes. In and of itself, that would show you were not voted in in April. If you believe the delay was purposely contrived to prevent you from participating in the budget process, that belief is not something that ordinarily would be recorded in minutes.

1 hour ago, Guest Alex said:

I was asked to sit on a lodging tax board in April and was not voted in until October missing the ability to vote on the budget for next year. They’re excuse was they were too busy. I thought I should be appointed to protect the interests of those I represent. Plus, can I have what happened recorded in the minutes?

Abstaining is simply not voting; it doesn't require a declaration if you're simply voting by a show of hands. That the member didn't vote (abstained) seems reasonably clear.

You may very well have a new nominations Chair, depending on the wording of your bylaws. Ask yourself, who (now) is your "Past President?" Then ask yourself if you any longer think this is a good idea, given the questions it has raised.

The  previous posts are all in line with one another and give you the answers you need.

Quote

Are you saying we don't need to ask for a motion to accept?

Yes, they are saying that. You DO NOT need a motion to accept.

Quote

Then what is proper procedure after each report is read?

First, keep in mind that a report of an officer and the minutes are 2 different things, as noted above. The minutes are not a Secretary's report. Ask if there are corrections to the (read) minutes. If there are none, the minutes are approved as submitted, if there are corrections, they're typically handled by unanimous consent, or majority vote if needed. When all the corrections are handled, the minutes are declared approved as corrected.

The treasurer's report is simply filed after it's read. No further action, as was noted above, if it's unaudited. If it IS an audited report, you'd properly entertain a motion to accept the auditor's report, rather than the treasurer's.

All good advice in those above posts, and not contradictory at all. Read them over a few times and I think you will see. I hope this helps.