Tom Coronite

Not 100% sure what's behind this, but she probably doesn't even have that authority. Ensure that the procedures are followed? Yes. But (arbitrarily/unilaterally) set them? Probably not.

Uncle Jim, Mr. Mervosh's answer highlights that it is the assembly that is in charge of its proceedings. The superintendent, or chair, or president, commodore, grand poobah, or any other person, is often mistakenly seen as a sole arbiter of what happens at a meeting, as we so often see in forum posts.

There may be an underlying misunderstanding of what placing it before the assembly means. Typically, motions and business items happen before the assembly because they are dealt with at meetings. This is not an issue of whether or not it's widely known. It's an issue of whether the motion (or request to be excused from duty) is properly in the hands of the assembly so it may be acted upon.

No argument there. I was speaking to the OP's not knowing why, rather than the performance of the chair. You are 100% correct, though (no surprise there.)

Perhaps the president had in mind your bolded statement, and is unsure if the subject motion is exclusively in the purview of the board.

But if you all (i.e. Rev. Darian's group) work at eliminating the extraneous material in your draft minutes, you'll likely find far less need for people to tinker around with them. Approval of the draft minutes (making them THE minutes) will likely go more smoothly, also.

It sounds as if you have a number of individual amendments to consider at your meeting (and not a bylaws revision). As Mr. Honemann states, they would ordinarily be moved one at a time. Perhaps this motion by the committee chair to "adopt the bylaws package seriatim" is an unnecessary step that is unnecessarily complicating your process. Why not just handle each proposed amendment individually?

If your bylaws say you shall have $500 in said account, I don't think you may consider a motion to suspend that bylaw and have $400 in said account. But I'm not entirely sure that's what the question is, and I'm not sure if the $500 stipulation is mandatory or a suggestion.

First, it must be determined if the vote needed is based on the number of votes, or based on the number of members present. For example, your bylaws might say a matter is decided by a majority vote. If so, and there are 50 votes, you are correct that a majority is 26 and that's what's needed to adopt. If there were 40 votes, 21 would be needed to adopt. The number of votes determines what is needed to adopt. But if the bylaws state the matter is to be decided by a vote of the majority of members present, that is different. In such a case, if there are 50 present but only 40 vote, as you say, the majority of members present (50) is still 26. If 30 vote, 26 is still needed to adopt. Lines 21-24 apply in the case where the number of members present, rather than the number of votes, is the determining factor. So the chair needs to know how many were present at the time of the vote.

Guest Maureen: see pp 104-105 where RONR states motions to "reaffirm" a position previously taken by the adoption of a motion are not in order, and a motion that only proposes that the assembly "refrain" from doing something (when the same effect is achieved by offering no motion) should not be offered, and it's preferable to avoid a motion containing a negative statement so as not to confuse members as to its effect. If by "make a motion not to do something" you mean any of those things, you shouldn't do it.

Just think, one person could thwart the will of any assembly by giving notice of intent to rescind every motion adopted.

Ah. Good point.

Wy is the fact that 4 would coincidentally be the number of committee memebers as well as a majority of the small board of trustees a concern? You're not concerned that 4 could decide they are empowered to act as the board, are you? (I ask because I've known exactly such a situation to happen.)

That IS confusing! Page 407 ll 21-31 is the reference Alexis Hunt meant. There you'll find the mention of not voting due to direct personal interest

I read the example you cite (p 144) as the difference between stating the question when it is pending, and referring to the main motion that is not currently pending when an amendment is currently pending.

Whereas RONR identifies chair (and secretary) as necessary at a business meeting, what would there be to debate? Would debating the act of selecting a chair pro-tem when one is needed be dilatory? Only the nominations themselves, then, could be debated. I'm asking.

Is the board running the general membership meeting? It sounds so, based on statements such as the members block all proposals from the board, even approving minutes and agendas. If so, that might be a good place to start cleaning up.

Another option is to refer a matter to a committee, even a committee of one, to report back when specified. That way you could wait until whatever you're waiting for is accomplished, and then take action on the matter.

Another reference for Alderman #4 might be p.40 ll 10-11 "After the question has been stated by the chair, the motion becomes the property of the assembly..."

"...until he decides to remove it from the table..." IF you are saying Alderman 4 believes the postponed item cannot be discussed until HE decides to discuss it because HE is the one who postponed it, as if HE somehow owns the motion, Alderman 4 would be incorrect.

Most likely. But if that is what they created with such an arrangement, then that is what they created. It's unfortunate, but it reinforces the notion that following RONR advice more closely is a good thing. Don't give two distinct bodies authority to amend bylaws. (Not that I'm certain theirs do, but I could see it as a reasonable interpretation based on what we see here.) Agreed.

I can certainly see where the Board of Trustees is given authority to amend the bylaws. I certainly see where (B) only mentions proposal rights for a member of the General Body. But are we to totally disregard "These Bylaws shall be formulated and amended by the Board of Trustees (BOT) or by the General Body pursuant to the procedure stated below" ? If it said "These Bylaws shall be formulated and amended pursuant to the procedure stated below" and then gave the Board of Trustees amending rights and the General Body only approval rights, that would certainly be clearer. But what is one to make of "or by the General Body" when it specifically applies to the preceding formulation and amending?

Guest Harper, under your current rules regarding proxies, how would you handle a situation where a person attends a meeting, is carrying a proxy for another, and leaves the meeting 5 minutes after the start before any business is transacted. Would you continue to count that person or the proxy toward the quorum?

Consider the fact that members who leave a (non-adjourned) meeting before it is adjourned no longer count toward the quorum.

A word of caution borne of experience: in our current bylaws, ex officio members are prohibited from voting. It often leads to time-consuming discussions about whether they count towards quorum, whether they can or cannot make motions, can they second a motion... And I have yet to see any benefit in our context to prohibiting these members from voting on boards or committees. If you have a good reason, you can certainly have such a rule in your bylaws. Ask yourself many times if it's a good reason.