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.

I also further realized something else to that second article, vote on the proposal (amendment) still requires annual meeting. the vagaries in the 2nd article might meant an attempt to re-propose amendment, then begs why do we need the publicly announced first article. another realization. if this is vote-annual meeting which will be made invalid and because the notice does not establish general meeting. that implies meeting conversion that I stated in end of other forum become an invalid attempt at April 30th meeting?

I became mind scrambled trying to sort out this. same organization involved discussed in other forum, https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/41098-possible-convolutions-to-amendment-procedures-and-how-might-we-address-the-convolutions/ They sent email to members with "video styled media" of the flyer with i l labeled 4 "areas" of articles. and I am looking at two articles that is scrambling my unfortunate brain. I am copying in simple text, not following their formatting... first article is "bylaws review" Bylaws Review welcome everyone to finish the review of our proposed bylaws from March 26th Date: Sunday April 16th 2023 Time: 1:00pm to 4:00pm Location: [detail left out due forum rules] [Address given] second article is "bylaws vote" Bylaws Vote After 30 days of collecting proposals for revisions, we will vote to accept some or all recommendation received. Date: April 30th 2023 Time: 1p to 4p Location: [same location as 1st, with address given] First article: now I am not sure how to interpret the first article properly. might be an committee meeting. What I can not wrap my head around; 250 members? recalling March 26th intention where the body moved to have emailed copy of the current and proposed bylaws and resume bylaws matters in April 29th. and the email "with directions" clearly not adopted after March 26th. and there is bylaw amendment rule manipulation-suspension waiting to be "point of order" and ruled "out of order" at suspend-moving-annual, then converted to general meeting. supposedly in April 29th. This meeting feels like participation process resolving the review. Does this feel like special meeting or committee meeting? If committee meeting, then why do we need notice like this? Second article. I had to think a bit. First of all at March 26th meeting, participants agreed to affix next meeting to April 29th. which falls under RONR 9:2. however the date given in the second article contradicted April 30th. and that article does not specify one of the three meeting types listed in bylaws [annual, general and emergency]. Since article expected vote , meant the person that developed this flyer is unaware or intend to ignore my alert that the suspension attempt is invalid and will raise point of order at next meeting. Does RONR have anything to state must type the meeting [bylaws names] (annual, general, emergency) in the notice or is this second article (without naming the type) valid? Is that proper for officers to change date from what is picked at March 29th to this article? adding: said organization's bylaws has Annual meeting 30 days, only in March (with suspension mistake ongoing breach), General meeting two weeks [14 days] notice, Emergency meeting [36 hours notice]. no bylaws rules established for committee meeting "notice".

president found this and stated... (his word in blue & red) To reinforce the validity of this evening’s meeting, I found this in the book of robert’s rules of order: photo of an text; in larger font. he circled (in red) around a block of text. dealt with attorneys before.) The reason it depends is because different groups use different levels of procedure. While it can sometimes be more complicated, the gen- eral rule is that larger groups use more formal procedures, while smaller groups use less-formal procedures. These levels of formality make sense. For instance, I serve as parliamentarian at several conventions that meet with thousands of delegates attending each year. In an effort to be fair, Is that statement in RONR? copying bylaws .. CHAPTER 9 - ROBERT'S RULE OF ORDER 1. Any parliamentary procedures not covered in the Bylaws and/or absence of a governing document covering specific processes shall be resolved by referring to a current edition of Robert's Rules of Order. I believe his statement is more of handling motion, second, debate, closing debate, determining validity of motions, vote process, glossing over a few steps. Does this cover the "RULES" listed in RONR such as 9:13, etc?

Uh oh. I went back to the first "notice" connected to postponement and April 11th, and second notice connected to update and closed meeting and April 11th. neither notice specifies subject matter; with president's stupid finger counting system, only the "less than 36h" April 9th notice states "discuss some matters that have come up". unfortunately there's the reaction.. what matter, name the matter... so my response would be [blue] NO, Again I am declining the invite to illegal meeting due to two following; the meeting is too young, less than 36 hours; and both April 11th meeting's notice does not satisfy Robert Rules of Order Newly Revised Chapter 9, section 13. Notice gives appearance in obstructing other members' ability to be present in the emergency meeting.

newer developments and need advice. I replied to their email with a modification sent to the officers listed on the invite email at 6:50 pm; copying in blue and italics No, I decline the invite to an illegal meeting due to following, notice is too young; less than 36 hours, and even though this is a modified meeting, looks like obstructing other members' ability to be present in the emergency meeting. Therefore should be ruled out of order. now today that emergency dash closed meeting... two things happened. a friend of mine called me at 7:03 asking me to attend the meeting (she tried to "use begging" psychology on me) and repeated answering her, NO [thrice]. But revealing she go ahead and attend the meeting (invited person and meeting is in progress). Also somebody on board probably read my email and did some sort of the point of order, resulting in this public postponement. President announced via new notice (sent 8:21 today) that someone said the meeting is not meeting 36 hours requirement and "postponed" the meet to April 11th, at 7 pm, with reference to April 9th notice, thus complying with 36 hours. I did reply in private email; this is not how notice work. suggested to count time/days backward from the picked meeting date/time then send notice before that time/day cutoff. stated "can not do notice to notice hopping". the organization then sent out second "updated" notice which (mirroring the 1st notice) but added closed meeting. that 2nd notice is sent April 10th at 9:08 pm. I had been aware of and been told in past this was president's habit of cancelling and rescheduling thinking the notice count goes to the "first one". example: we will have meeting on February 14th, notice sent out January 20th. closing in to February meeting. an email sent out on February 13th saying meeting is cancelled and rescheduled to February 16th. people have raised not 14 days notice. president say yes is from January 20th. Is there better way to explain this notice rule to president or to the body?

Ah I understand your interpretation. My interpretation is presence in that emergency meeting. does my corrected response stand reasonable?

this is in reference to the emergency meeting. which states in chapter 5.2 of the bylaws. included in the cut and paste above. so members still has the right to participate. what is not clear and probable that the other rights such as motion, second, debate is not granted to members in the emergency meeting. Whether you accept or decline the invite is up to you. With respect to the rules, it is certainly correct that if the notice was sent fewer than 36 hours before the meeting, then the meeting is null and void on that grounds alone. remove the portion about modified meeting to comply with RONR 9:24-27? rephrase into this No, I decline the invite to an illegal meeting due to following, notice is too young; less than 36 hours, and eventhough this is a modified meeting, looks like obstructing other members to participate in the emergency meeting. Therefore should be ruled out of order.

I don't know, and I doubt I will know even when I have all the facts straight (assuming I can get them all straight). You are presumably more knowledgeable of the political situation in your organization than I am and will have a better idea of what to write concerning this matter. I will try to help with the rules questions and you can take it from there. I am still not attending that zoom meeting. Should I reply email replying the invite [zoom] meeting? No, I decline the invite to an illegal meeting due to following, notice is too young; less than 36 hours, and this modified meeting need to comply with RONR 9:24-27. Due to nature of the modification, I feel this meeting is obstructing other members to participate; therefore should be ruled out of order.

does that mean invited do not have the right to motion, second, debate and vote during the executive session?

bylaws is bit vague on the body in related to emergency meeting. however membership is defined as a group with conditions aka deaf, hard of hearing, etc, resides in new mexico and older than 18. also indicates does not have vote with exception of annual meeting. I re-read emergency meeting and the general meeting bylaw clause(s) and noted difference: emergency meeting is silent on the rights to move, second and debate. the vote limitation is in the membership section. So therefore the answer to your question of All rights... the council. in bylaws states meeting notice is sent to all members. that is members and council. such clause is not located. traditionally is open to all. I assumed during the meeting the member has to rise and call previliged motion to enter executive session. In this organization past, council is the body entering the session even though members can call for that session. also assumed has to declare who invited into the session. I believe starting an executive session outside of the meeting, or "planning" to setup the executive meeting is improper; this due to my interpretation need to publicly announce the decision to enter such session. This yesterday notice sounded like planning to set up the closed meeting. not granting opportunity for members to call that or include invites. below is cut and paste copied from section in the bylaws. CHAPTER 4 - THE COUNCIL (GENERAL MEETING) 1. The Council is the group of the elected Board of Officers and Representatives. 2. There shall be at least six (6) general meetings per year. Announcing the calendar of meetings for the year is the President's responsibility. 3. A meeting of the Council shall have a quorum of at least five (5) officers, not including representatives. 4. Members are encouraged to attend meetings. Members may motion, second and discuss during general meetings but may not vote. 5. Announcement of the regular meetings shall be sent out to members at least two weeks before the general meeting by the Secretary. 6. At the Annual Meeting, members are allowed to vote on the amendments to the Bylaws. Annual Meeting shall be announced at least 30 days in advance. The Annual Meeting includes elections which all members can vote. The Annual Meeting takes place in March. 7. All members of the council shall have and use email to maintain current information. Social Media such as Facebook is encouraged but not required as information are also shared. CHAPTER 5 - EMERGENCY MEETING 1. Emergency meeting may be called by the President or by a simple majority of the Council. 2. Notification of the emergency meeting shall be sent out to members at least thirty-six hours (36 hours) (1.5 days) in advance. 3. The caller of the emergency meeting shall be recorded in the minutes. 4. The meeting shall have a quorum of at least seven (7) of the Council with at least four (4) Officers in attendance.