Tom Coronite

Excellent point!

If a motion was adopted to create this position, what further steps must be taken to "enact" or implement it? Why wouldn't the adoption of the motion suffice? Unless I'm missing something, which is totally possible, it would seem the motion was adopted, the position exists, even if nobody has taken advantage of the position since its creation.

If these are draft minutes, as the OP states, why not simply offer a correction to remove the statement when the minutes are being approved?

"Ex officio" means by virtue of the office (held.) What do your bylaws say about this "liaison role?"

Is the process of reading and approving your minutes taking an inordinate amount of time? is that why you want to avoid it? Perhaps there's too much extraneous material in the minutes.

I would be curious to see exactly how the so-called motion to rescind was worded. Depending on the wording, it may very well have been a motion to do something.

Perhaps they could be considered in the nature of announcements or open forum (see p 362). I don't know that the "other officers" contemplated on p 461 is meant to include what you have described here.

2 hours ago, Guest Dayle said:

We have a five member board, and are finding it increasingly difficult to have residents wanting to take a chair.  I understand the board can continue with four members as we would have a quorum.  However, if we are voting and have a tie, how do we break the tie?

Are you saying you're having difficulty finding someone to take the fifth seat on the board? Or that you are having difficulty finding someone willing to be the chair of the board?

A recount may be ordered by the voting body, by a majority vote, at the same session, or at the next session if it's within a quarterly time interval, or at a special session called for that purpose, also within a quarterly time interval and before the next regular session. cf RONR p 419 ll 1-10.

After, of course, addressing the questions Mr Lages has asked.

3 hours ago, Guest Todd said:

    We have another meeting next week, this information will help as I challenge the proceedings from the last meeting in November, as I and another member seek to conduct meetings that are done decently, and in order.   

Fair enough. But I hope you don't mean you plan on challenging anything that was done at that meeting solely because a non-member was there. That fact alone would not nullify other actions taken. Or maybe I misunderstand your point.

You don't need to know days in advance in order to vote on it; you could raise the issue (and vote) at the meeting when you become aware of it. It may be uncomfortable and/or awkward, and it would be nice had the president told you, but if it's important enough, even without advance notice, the assembly has the right. How would you vote on it before the meeting anyway, IOW, conduct business outside the meeting?

The education about "friendly amendments" seems a worthy battle, though!

The fact that your meeting lacked a quorum has no bearing on the fact that "the notes of the discussion" should not be in the minutes, as Mr. Huynh's link above explains. But there should be minutes from that meeting. Most likely they only should record that there was a meeting, a quorum was not obtained, and you (probably) adjourned.

Perhaps the assembly is having open and general discussions with no motion pending, in the hopes that once the issue has been discussed at great length, some "motion" or "action" will come of it. If so, they'd probably find meetings to be more focused and efficient to do it the proper way and have a motion pending first, and then discuss it.

A point of order could be raised, if the speaker is violating some rule while speaking, such as exceeding the time limit or the number of times he's allowed to speak on the question.

15 hours ago, Guest Gene said:

 

However a few of my board members are concerned that this may give the membership the impression that they can overturn or initiate budgetary and management practices that the bylaws list as responsibilities of the board. That is why I was looking for that quote to reassure them.  Would any of you be able to quote references that could shed light upon this?

 

 

Based on what you have below, perhaps their concerns are unfounded. Isn't the board pretty much fully empowered?

50 minutes ago, Guest Sory, Here is full text JJ said:

ARTICLE VII. GOVERNMENT

Section B. The Board.  The government of this church shall be vested in the board which shall consist of the pastor and eleven deacons.

 

Section C. Duties of the Board. The board shall:

1.     Function as the board of directors and establish policy for the organization. 

2.     Have general charge and management of the affairs, funds, and property of the church with authority to carry out the purposes of the church according to these bylaws.

 

You might find this link helpful.

http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_13

Yes.

Ha! Thanks.

Tonight we have a meeting of the Church Council, which is the church's executive board. Previously we adopted a motion to form a nominating committee made up of all the members of the Church Council plus one non-member.

At tonight's meeting, we will deal with nominating committee business.

My question: is it proper, after we've dealt with the business of the Church Council (board), to move to adjourn the Church Council meeting and begin a meeting of the nominating committee? If yes, should the Council minutes reflect only that the Council meeting adjourned, or also the commencement of the nominating committee meeting.

Or, simply adjourn the Church Council meeting, and consider the fact that we are starting a nominating committee as irrelevant?

I wonder if somewhere in the mix there is a motion "to leave things as they are" and that is mucking things up a bit. Some perhaps believe such a motion (which, clearly, should not be offered) requires a 2/3 vote to adopt.

OK, that makes sense. I suppose I've always assumed if the ABC committee reports at the annual meeting (per the bylaws), and the minutes reflect that J.Jones reported for the ABC committee, that gets files with the minutes. But your other example makes sense and is helpful. Thanks.

Then what is meant/intended by "written reports are filed"? Aren't they filed with the minutes of the meeting at which the reports were given? And if they are, doesn't it make sense to say they're filed with the minutes, perhaps even stapled to, or otherwise attached?

I guess I'm not understanding the distinction being made between attaching reports to the minutes, and filing reports.

Quote

Nothing is attached to the minutes. Written reports are filed.

Great. Thanks.

P. 89 discusses what is required if "written notice" of a regular/stated meeting is to be sent. Here, the term "call" is not used.

P. 91-93 discusses the notice of a special/called meeting and refers to the notice of such a meeting as a "call."

Am I correct in concluding, then, that the term "call" is properly used only for special/called meetings? If written notice of a regular meeting is required by our bylaws, is it improper to refer to such a notice as a "call" because of the nature of the meeting?

(I find it ridiculous that such a question is important in our proceedings, but it is what it is. :-D )