rynait

I was not there at the meeting. [conflicted schedule for personal reasons] but... I was not aware that host committee has not seen the report. and I did assume was accepted report. I acted on minutes information that OrgC decided is okay to suspend bylaws to rush a board meeting. Two hours after draft minutes is posted, I sent communication to Officers saying meeting is invalid, and do not move money, take money back in to original account. vice chair said in the invalid meeting (reading on in the minutes) earning is 16k, and OrgC made 3 motions made open CD account with 10k, donate 10% (as tax write off), put remainder 4k in checking account. Quite a lot of potato to report to IRS. I believe 501c can not do "donation tax write off". Reading between the sentence; he said said earning is 16k, not say our share is 16k. so, after findings yesterday; Chairwoman might have intervene and tell vice-chair to send money to OrgA. Might have told vice-chair talk to OrgA before presenting the report(s). Per OrgA bylaws, all income generated at campout belongs to OrgA unless deal or agreements are made. (I did help chairwoman (via text) start a rough motion-deal for NM organizations 4 years ago).

oh gosh. that is when I was asked the questions, realized problems trying to figure out from RONR and bylaws on three organizations roles or due process. Clear from answers from Mr Martin, RONR is not going to help much with raised issues involving three organizations matters. Thank you for your response.

I was asked a parliamentary question by an member of dual organization and I am member of one organization and aware of 3rd organization.. making my brain believe there are puzzlement situation. start with history facets eight years ago, Organization A picked New Mexico to "host" an camping event. the proposer was thinking of NM organization b.. OrgB were unaware of the proposal and approval (adopted by organization A) until adoption or approval letter came to them. NM organization B, inquired to the approval process and hosting rules from the Organization A and got the information. I reviewed OrgA approval process and bylaws at request of OrgB and noted they do not have "RONR" rules in their bylaws. But the process of host picking is outlined and was valid. Blame the surprise on the proposer. OrgB did not need for full vote (with 3 officer approving) accepted hosting tasks and formed the host committee. The proposer then later on 6 month approached NM organization C, and had OrgC vote to include themselves in the host committee (forming second committee). This dual committee created confusion(s). OrgB contacted OrgA asking resolution regarding confusion. OrgA said refer to proposer (unfortunately has passed away on 7th month since propose and approval). at four year point, per hosting rule; at least one of host committee member(s) attend the meeting and "hear-debate-discuss" in preparatory for the hosting. OrgB sent 2 members (part of the committee). OrgC did not send member(s) did not attend that meeting at all. One person (OrgB chairwoman) is member of both OrgB and OrgC did attend, under OrgB's sending member representation. OrgA that time of 4 year point resolved committee issue by combining both as host joint committee. Picking OrgB's chair as chairwoman of the host joint committee. OrgB at that 4 year OrgA's meeting did ask for consent to splitting the gains generated at the host event between 3 organizations. OrgC (because not attending), found out and fought against the pick and demanded co-chair instead. After that point I do not know what OrgA response was to OrgC fight on co-chair. some point after that co-chair fight, OrgC discovered OrgB is not an 501c organization and using OrgC powers, "kicked" OrgB participation off the committee (Host committee still retain OrgB members becoming committee volunteers?). OrgA later on discovered that 501c anomaly and addressed it. Since OrgA knows that the chair is dual member of OrgB and OrgC, said the person {of OrgB & OrgC} is now Chair of the host committee. Then made OrgC's "co-chair" as vice-chair. But after restructuring host committee, is not clear whether the consented split with the OrgB is removed. [I as parliamentary interpret this ousting, also removes split gains] end of history facets... here what transpired afterwards leading to puzzlement(s). as of today, 2 weeks ago OrgC published minutes revealing a meeting taken place at least 3 weeks ago, Minutes stated they did suspend two bylaws (which is not in order), and made two motions involving on funds, which came from the gains from the hosting event. Chair contacted me regarding the bylaws suspension. I am member of OrgC and told chair per OrgC bylaws that board meeting does not have authority to suspend bylaws. Bylaws says suspension is allowed by 5/8 present at general meeting by membership. Since One of suspended bylaws involves sending meeting notice time (before meeting): holding meeting on that day bylaws was suspended on; invalid (bylaws says 30 days notice, and meeting met 2 weeks after notice is sent). I sent email to secretary declaring the meeting is invalid and do not move the money as motioned in that minutes. I know and communicated to another parliamentarian [he is full member of that OrgC]. He said he saw the minutes and already contacted two officers telling them meeting is not in order. Chair saw in the minutes (of the invalid meeting) vice chair presented financial report of the host event. She asked me is this also allowed, since "I have not seen or approved the report". I had to mull over this some. and believe per 51.2, vice chair is not to present report without showing all committee member had seen and read it. Since OrgA, OrgB and OrgC had different meet schedules, per RONR 51.1 ; is host report supposed to be shown at OrgA's meeting first but not shown to other org and public until after OrgA meeting? I did suggest to Chair, raise to officer preferably president, the Host report is not approved before the committee, remanding report retraction from the minutes. Also raise point that meeting is not in order, and at next valid meeting, I must be attending to present report (prevent vice chair from making bad motions which I felt on that level of money moving motion(s)). wrap this up with questions a) is there a requirement for primary organization [OrgA] seeing the report first before released to remaining Orgs and public? b) the gain split might be valid and applied... Who gets to audit that gains, forcing validation of the split and correcting procedural process. Especially OrgB being outsed by OrgC but not by OrgA (keep mind but members from OrgB did assist and work in the committee.) c) does Chair have right to reprimand vice chair for failing to follow the RONR procedures involving money gains decisions and report? d) if audit is going to be required, which organization, or independently is supposed to hold the funds until the split? Roy I also sending this to chair. might see some corrections afterwards.

after googling for that martha's. and read it. I believe most most [sic] stupidiest rule of order. for example I pre-write motion to buy a van. explain all of that (per MRO). All of sudden during meeting all members understood (thumbs up) but want to add "pink" van. HOW? Do they force an amendment which is a motion (per Robert's rules). making the logical process far restricted. another problem. Do you think member [sponsor] have time to "THINK" philosophize the motion's additional materials before a meeting. no-body has a crystal ball to predict the future! Even worst the paper said proper motion. That definition for proper is not in the paper, SO WHO defines the meaning of proper motions? I predict a "meeting war" over that. The worst part; 2/3 of my organization members are grade 7 English language level. They are going to fail understanding the "pre-motion", wasting the meeting time with "go back" and do over. (for those who are curious, Those members with higher grade, "interprets 'verbally' motion [not amending] into grade 7 level" prior to seconding. ) Are there other rule of order published out there in circulation?

Hello, Someone tried to put in "Martha's Rule of Order" in amendment and person gave a summarized statement based on one page rule. Membership defeated that amendment and kept robert's rule of order. The question whether I can ask in here, Where can I find "Martha's Rule of Order" and how many other rule of order published out there in circulation? Rynait

Okay, but I don't think this, in and of itself, answers my question. Has the committee completed the duty which was assigned to it and presented its final report? The rule specifically provides that the fact that an annual meeting intervenes does not discharge a special committee. um. normally committee existence stops, after presenting the amendment(s) in march meeting. not due to vote; president is still presiding the meeting. I thought we needed proper meeting [general meeting] to end the the breach time with a point of order. It is my understanding when breach-time is stopped; organization could not retroactive fix this proposal and vote because march 2023 is over. Thus a do-over is required and equates to new committee. a timing question. the bylaws committee did start presenting the bylaws for reading. first page is read. then "stopped" with motion asking email copy for reading before April [breach] meeting. Is that a final report, or not final?

I do agree. since bylaws dumped "meeting" into structure that may generate massive confusion. My thinking is find a word that satisfies "membership" into members section. and the meeting section separated into three groups. DO repeat clauses... perhaps add an extra section saying none of meetings may overlap or be part of another type of meeting. Might have to propose new section on "notice" finger counting to my understanding organization needs weaker meeting to deal with the building management. making 4th group

The bylaws proposal is complete restructure of the social styled organization into what looks like a foundation style organization without membership. thus the irate members calling me as incoming secretary. There was a rumor that this was two person bylaw committee and chair [of committee] is the outgoing secretary, did that rewrite without 2nd member awareness. I unfortunately favor eviscerate the committee and replace with completely new committee and have member directly propose needed amendments [to satisfy "adding" building project management rules]. The bylaws was deliberately thrice written, with intention of "dumping" dirty work on the council. Membership did choose to retain the "extended" right structure in the bylaws to prevent dictatorship behaviors within the council with their general meeting.

Notice (for March 26th) was following the president's convoluted finger counting problem. thus another problem anyhow. 1) February 2nd notice issued for general meeting on Feb 11th. might affixed next meeting; I do not have copy of that minutes. 2) March 5th apologizing problem email server. sent announcing meeting March 11th. only specified day and time. does state general, annual and elections. 3) March 9th, is copy of 5th, adding reminder and time 4) March 10th, postponed to march 26. details tba. 5) final notice with required details sent on March 23rd. I do not know if amendment proposal was made in February meeting or January meeting. but definitely none was made before January. Correct on the meeting sequence. oh I made error. the agenda states general bylaw election sections no adjourn between sections. not used word "annual" in there. based on your question. agenda bylaws section.. states reading the proposed bylaws, vote in April or May. Member rose to move suspension vote rule before we started reading the bylaws. progress-meeting sounds about right.

Why? On what basis is the committee disbanded? RONR 50:30. this is temporary committee.

president constructed this march 26th, into three sessions. the general meeting session, Annual meeting session, and Election session. Agenda presented is as one whole list with session in it. motion was the suspend voting amendment in march, and allow to vote on amendment in April and/or May per RONR 25.

I have a subject to think ... and being aware to that point of order has to be raised in a meeting. this bylaws committee is supposedly "disbanded" after March 26th meeting is adjourned. I am going to define "breach time" as between March 26th and next meeting; as no meeting held between those two times until point of order is raised. please remember the membership is not aware yet. 1. during breach time; Is Bylaws Committee supposed to continue? 2. as stated in prior forum, president was told of the breach, Should the president alert committee to stop-do nothing during breach time?

Thank you. very helpful to my scrambled mind. a lot of what I said in the first section is clearly rubbish. a question. "members of society" other than committee member do not deliberate at the hearing? I am not certain I fully understand this question. What "date" is being changed here? The date of a meeting? In that event, whether the date can be changed by the officers will depend on whether the notice deadline has passed and who has the authority to call the meeting in question. At march 26th meeting, relating to the bylaws amending; three things... one clearly an mistake... a breach. 1) member rose to suspend "annual voting in march", allow vote on proposed bylaws in April and/or May. This is double breach based your prior advices of RONR Chapter 25 and no suspension stated in bylaws. Someone will have to rise at next meeting calling point of order to this breach. 2) Member rose disgruntled, moving having organization send out the proposed and current bylaws for reading before April meeting. passed [oh is that possible political play on setting up April 16th hearing?] 3) 2nd item before end of the agenda is "next meeting date". Council picked an Saturday, finger counted to April 29th [this is RONR 9:2]. President proceeded to last item of agenda; adjourn. he said meeting is adjourned at [time]. I might be mistaken, is not an adjourning to fixed time. 4) not March 26th meeting. but no body sent out the notice for April 29th before 30 days vote [that notice is not suspended but respect to breach suspend]. Unsure if general meeting qualifies in order to recognize the breach and implement fixes. Now this article dash notice is referring to April 30th as vote meeting. Is it proper for officer to change date from 29th to 30th?

CHAPTER 11 - BYLAWS AMENDMENTS 1. Amendments to these Bylaws may be made by a two-thirds (2/3) majority of the members present at an announced Annual election. 2. Amendments may be proposed at least 30 days before the Annual election so that they may be announced and voted upon.

simple majority is half plus one. a tie is half, whatever was voted and tied, then is dead. But in your case; president do not cast vote, thus I interpret, possible master of ceremony or performance narrator. I am not parliamentarian. personal perspective.