Tom Coronite

A real world example: Our bylaws formerly read that the Pastor's contract with the Church could be "terminated by either themselves, or by the Church upon ninety days notice." The fact that there is a comma after themselves, and not one after Church, led to significant disagreements during a previous Pastor's departure. Placement of commas in that sentence could mean 90 days notice is required to be given by the Pastor, and by the church, or by only one. If you simply let a person "fix" punctuation as he or she sees fit, that person could be changing your bylaws significantly.

I am so glad we amended our bylaws and removed this troublesome term. (non-voting member)

From what you describe about your bylaws, it sounds as if the motion failed. It did not get the required 100%.

Suppose you had a standing rule that required any check written for more than $250 required two signatures. That would apply to the Treasurer's duties outside the context of a meeting. That rule couldn't be suspended.

If you are asking if you can disregard a provision in your bylaws requiring something to happen before a bylaws amendment can be considered, the answer is probably no. If you are asking if the president can disregard provisions in your bylaws requiring elections by the membership and/or qualifications for office, the answer is probably no.

Does "in the regular order of business" quoted above (early in the quote) apply within a meeting or session only, or can it be applied to another meeting or session?

If they are not members of the body that is deliberating, they could be given permission per the cited reference. But, if by "non voting member" you mean a member of the body that is deliberating, but for whatever reason your group eliminates their right to vote (as we see many times in forum scenarios) that is likely a bylaws interpretation question. JPOW, are you referring to members (who are not allowed to vote) of the body debating the proposal?

Someone else who was apparently ALSO not specified in the bylaws? Wow. SMH...

It would appear it's a typo; it should be item 8, from the right book.

OK. That certainly makes sense. Thank you.

Only that officers serve "for terms of 3 years or until their successors are elected."

If the church elects officers at its annual meeting, it stands to reason they also have the power to remove from office. The church's executive board, called the Church Council, is empowered to act for the church (between meetings of the church) in all secular matters not otherwise provided for in the bylaws. Does the Church Council's authority to act for the church include the power to remove from office? Or is it a matter of bylaws interpretation?

There was a resignation. The sentence you partially quote mentions the president resigned, so apparently he's off the board.

Transpower, Do you see any difference in degree of specificity in "...appoints THIS (the) committee" vs "...appoints ALL committees"?

Perhaps the removed officer could, after being removed, be brought onto the board again, depending on what your bylaws say and what the provision regarding "removal" means. You may be seeing why such a hard-and-fast removal clause is unwise, and maybe should be changed.

Would leaving the room solely so the motion would pass, making their action singularly responsible for adopting the motion, really make them feel better than simply voting yes? It may very well be possible their fear of a "conflict of interest" is unfounded, unless they for some reason have a pecuniary interest not held in common with other members. Is that really the case?

..or a 2/3 vote, period.

Absent some other info that would change the scenario it would appear you had a quorum, and the motion to rescind was properly adopted by meeting the 2/3 threshold.

Or all the small dog clubs take the summer off...

FWIW, when I first offered this question, my thought was the wording is, indeed, crucial. If we'd decided to join the association, my thinking was that we had done that. The action was over and done with, so to leave the association would require only a majority vote. if we'd decided to be a member of the association (or something similar), that implied ongoing membership, so the higher threshold or notice applied. But the brief discussion about membership requirements and continued actions got me thinking that there would be the indication of the will of the assembly, rather than in the wording of the original motion. I do think both aspects are helpful, but the former more so. As we continue to make voluntary donations to the association, and we participate in its activities, I have a sense that membership is ongoing and desired by the church, so the threshold to rescind or amend would need to be met.

Agreed. But in church meetings, so often things are driven by emotions and spur of the moment decisions, rather than planning. I suppose other groups, too. :-)

There are no required actions to continue membership. But what you have suspected is the case; we do, time to time, adopt a motion to support the organization financially. I had not considered that as having a bearing on the situation, but that makes sense that it would.

Would you say the same if the motion to terminate membership was not 2 years later? perhaps, the next day?

Do you have an interesting opinion? :-)

A church executive board, authorized to act for the church between the church's meetings, votes to join the XYZ association of churches. The adopted motion is "to join the XYZ association." Two years later at a meeting of the church, a motion is made "to terminate membership in the XYZ association." What vote is needed? Is it 2/3 because it is a motion to rescind something previously adopted, and per Official Interpretation 2006-13? Or is it a majority vote, because the original motion of the board was complied with (we joined the association) and this is simply a new action?