Edgar Guest

Nah.  I think it's fine regardless of how much time has elapsed.  It fits in perfectly with the thread and shows that guest Secretary had actually been researching his/her question on here and found a thread which seemed to perfectly fit his question.  (I'm gonna stick to he, him and his until told otherwise).  It seems like a perfect follow up.  But, regardless, it hardly seems like anything to get all worked up over.  I'm fine with it being here.  It's as good a fit as I've ever seen and far better than most.  In fact, it's just about a perfect fit.   I've got bigger things to worry about than whether our guest should have started a new thread for this question.

 

FWIW, most similar forums prefer that follow up questions that are related to an existing thread or topic posted in an existing thread rather than starting a new one.  I think we are the odd ones out on this forum for preferring that every new question be posted as a new topic.

Please click here.

That looks to me like a good general rule of thumb for piggybacking posts.

No, it's not. Especially not after five years.

Regretted to have failed t spread,...( my missed words, sorry)

One of the benefits of being a member is the ability to edit (i.e. amend) and even delete (i.e. rescind) your posts.

Though one should never delete posts that have been replied to.

And any editing done after replies have been posted should be done sparingly and transparently (e.g. by using Strike Through and adding a note indicating that the post has been edited).

Edited at 9:15 AM.

No, but they could and could cite the same acts he was to be censured for. 

"could and could"?

And why do you think this person was male?

How could one's 'friends' possibly commend such acts?

By amending the motion to strike "censure" and insert "commend".

Our organization is in New York State. It is a not-for-profit organization (Historical Society). In New York State, land of 100,001 laws and regulations, Historical Societies, Museums, and Libraries can only operate legally if approved by the New York State Education Department. That approval is in the form of a Charter (either provisional or absolute).

 

Within the last few weeks I learned our organization must abide by other regulations. In NYS, not-for-profit organizations have to abide by "Not-for-profit Corporation" regulations. These regulations dictate many things, such as quorums, whistleblower requirements, conflict of interest policies, mergers, consolidations, finances, and many other details. Many of the regulations allow the organization's By-Laws to supersede the state regulations.

As it happens, I used to be involved with a local historical society whose provisional charter, granted in 1991, was made "absolute" in 2000. 

Unless you're an attorney or a tax accountant (I'm neither), I would caution against interpreting the applicable laws based on a cursory reading of a few web pages. You might want to contact historical societies near you. There's no need to reinvent the wheel.

In California as well as many other states, homeowners associations are subject to sunshine laws as well including email meetings where a quorum of board members discuss an item of business.

What transforms the exchange of e-mail among individual board members into an "e-mail meeting"?

(Note: this is a rhetorical question, outside the scope of this forum.)

I thought if you had a email discussion with a quorum of members, then it was to be available to review.

The quorum refers to the number of members who must be present at a meeting in order for any substantive business to be conducted. The exchange of e-mail messages among board members does not constitute a meeting of the board (so the word "quorum" doesn't apply) and nothing in RONR gives anyone the right to view those messages.

From what I'm reading, is that the quorum is met, but due to some vacancies, still need that fixed number (post #6 for example) for majority vote.  If unable to meet that majority, the board wouldn't be able to get the required number to make decisions....

No. Do not confuse the quorum requirement with a voting requirement. A vote of 1-0 constitutes a majority vote no matter how many members are present (or absent).

It seems clear to me that General Robert would agree with the OP's reasoning that "if enough Board members resign (perhaps due to internal squabbling) and the remaining Board members do NOT fill the vacancies... maybe because some Board members have an ulterior motive... it should NOT give the remaining Board members the power to push something through with less than a majority of a full Board."

What if a majority of a full board is present but, due to vacancies, the quorum requirement can't be met (e.g. the quorum requirement is two-thirds of the board)? Is the General's objection to the lack of a majority or the lack of a quorum (in cases where the two are different)?

The original poster (#1) quoted the association bylaw as defining a quorum as a "Majority of the Board" . . . 

 

The former definition, given the other numbers presented in the posting, results in a fixed quorum of 6 (a majority of 11) . . . 

I think the term "majority of the board" can be reasonably interpreted to mean "majority of the board members".

You say the creation is "Usually" by motion. What are all of the potential ways to create?

And, not surprisingly, the motion that creates a committee is called a Motion to Commit.

The short answer is "yes".

The slightly longer answer is that there's no need to make a motion to approve the minutes (mainly because not approving them is not an option). But a member who wasn't present at the meeting in question is perfectly free to suggest a correction prior to approval. Our favorite example is when the minutes record that the absent member made a motion.

I made yet another mistake by filling out a 'report', instead of the reply.

That's okay. Our Moderator will likely be grateful.

It's also possible (though perhaps unlikely) that the board might not be the proper body to accept (or reject) the resignation of a board member.

Mr. Honemann is still an author of the current editions of RONR and RONRIB, and there ain't nothin' he can do to change that.

And even though Mr. Honemann has retired resigned from The Authorship Team, I've already suggested (alas, to no avail) that he retain his position as a member of The Moderating Team. If for no other reason than he has contributed more than 4,000 posts as a Moderator and those posts no longer indicate that.

I saw this discussion because we had an important vote started by a motion entered by a "non-voting" member.  I'm wondering if the motion is considered legitimate under Robert's Rules. 

If the only right of membership that's absent is the right to vote, all other rights of membership (e.g. the right to attend meetings, the right to make motions, the right to speak in debate) remain.

For future reference, this forum works best if you post your new question as a new topic, even if you find an existing (month-old) topic that's similar. In other words, think of this as Ms. Prescott's topic.

I can try to find how to amend the message (if that's possible without reprogramming the code) . . .

It's possible. That's what you're paying for. There are perfectly good free, open-source, alternatives.

Don't be deterred by the message on the reporting form that says, "This form is to be used ONLY for reporting objectionable content . . ."

Unless and until that message is amended, I think most (including me) will be deterred. Which seems to be the point of the message.

Surely you're not suggesting that we ignore the rules.

There is no need to notify anyone. The member simply chooses not to vote. Unless the vote is by ballot, the other members will probably notice.

The discussion note clearly states it is intended as a discussion only  with no action is requested. The intent was only to throw out ideas for further discussion on this topic to determine if there was any consensus to pursue ideas.

 

If there was consensus, then perhaps a motion could be struck if an action was required at that time.

If all you want to do is "throw out ideas", go across the street and throw them out at the tavern. Don't waste members' time waiting for "consensus". Some of them may have better things to do.

If there's time for the nominating committee to reconvene and select another candidate, it should do so. If not, it's no big deal.

In any event, nominations from the floor should always be accepted.

You might also want to avoid the use of the word "slate". There is no slate.

So someone made a motion to talk about "x" and most members didn't want to talk about "x" so the motion (to do nothing but talk) was defeated?

Small boards (such as, presumably, your council) are free to discuss things without a formal motion having first been made. In larger bodies it's motion first, then debate, then voting.

Further, in case this might be an issue, the fact that the agenda listed something for discussion would not prevent the council from adopting a motion to actually do something rather than just talk about doing something (or talk about doing nothing).

The mere fact that something is on an agenda doesn't necessarily mean a motion will be made. In other words, when the meeting gets to that item, a member will (eventually) have to make a motion or no decision will have been made. Motions (to do something) are how deliberative bodies make decisions (to do something).

If for example, the agenda item was the dilapidated condition of the clubhouse, a member could, for example, make a motion directing the president to hire a painter to paint the clubhouse red at a cost not to exceed $250.. During debate the motion might be amended (e.g. change "red" to "green"). Or the motion might be sent to a committee for further research. Or maybe no one makes a motion at all and the meeting moves on to the next item on the agenda.

 . . . most  (not all) rules can be be suspended in particular situations.

I'd rather say that most rules can't be suspended.