Richard Brown

I agree with my colleagues. The board member in question did not resign and there is no resignation to withdraw. She simply expressed her intention to not seek reelection. The nominating committee fulfilled its role and completed its responsibilities when it nominated someone else for the position and submitted its report.

If the member in question now wishes to seek reelection and if the rules in RONR apply, she may ask for someone to nominate her from the floor.  She may also ask for members to write in her name on their ballots if she is not nominated from the floor. 

On 8/2/2024 at 1:24 PM, Secretary2024 said:

Both groups discussed things that should've been discussed in front of the membership. The most recent one had no legitimate reason for executive session.

Both of those situations are actually not all that uncommon. The solution is generally to elect better board members who will do the right thing.

Agreeing with Mr. Martin, by what authority does the band Director have the authority to refuse to permit the booster club to have a meeting? Does he even need to be notified of a meeting or present for one? It sounds to me like he might be exceeding his authority.

I couldn’t say it any better than Mr. Martin just did. His post saved me from a lot of typing or dictating! 

On 8/2/2024 at 11:42 AM, Rob Elsman said:

Had I to do it all over again, I would name the section, Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted.

As would I.

On 8/1/2024 at 7:47 PM, DZMASJWD said:

Our organization has a set of bylaws. At the ending there is a statement/clause, that the bylaws can not be amended or changed if Founder/Co-founder dies or resigns. Does that mean as it sounds? Is the only option to start from scratch and desolve?  
 

Thanks

From a parliamentary standpoint, based upon the rules in RONR, I think such a bylaw provision is valid and enforceable.  However, I agree with JJ that it would be helpful to see the exact language of that bylaw provision.

On 8/1/2024 at 2:50 PM, laser158689 said:

Our BoE Chair has resigned from the Board.  This got me looking at our town legislative body (Representative Town Meeting) and its succession for Moderator.

There is a mention of a "Moderator pro tempore" in the Charter, but our Rules (conflated bylaw & special rules of order) make this position permanent.

The Moderator Pro Tem does have explicit, independent duties (eg review submissions for meetings, bulletin board) in the Rules - not just a "backup" moderator.

If the Moderator resigns, does the Moderator pro tempore ascend to the office of Moderator?

 

Charter

The annual meeting of Representative Town Meeting members shall be held on the third Monday of January 1966, and biennially thereafter. The Representative Town Meeting members shall, at their first annual meeting and biennially thereafter, elect from among their number a Moderator, who shall act as moderator of all Representative Town Meetings. He shall hold office for a term of two (2) years and until his successor shall be elected and shall have qualified. A Moderator pro tempore may be elected by the Representative Town Meeting members from among their number who shall serve in the absence of the moderator.

Rules

 

1. Moderator. RTM members shall, at their organization meeting and in accordance with the procedure set forth below, elect from among their number a Moderator, who shall act as moderator of all RTMs and shall hold office for a term of two years and until a successor shall be elected and have qualified.

2. a. Moderator Pro Tempore. RTM members shall, at their organization meeting and in accordance with the procedure set forth below, elect from among their number a Moderator Pro Tempore who shall act as moderator pro tempore of all RTMs in the absence of the moderator and who shall hold office for a term of two years and until a successor shall be elected an shall have qualified.

b. In the absence of the moderator and the moderator pro tempore, members shall elect from among their number a Moderator Pro Tempore to preside at that meeting, in accordance with the procedure for election of a moderator set forth in the following paragraph.

I see nothing in the information you provided which indicates that the moderator pro-tem becomes the moderator in the event of a resignation of the moderator.

However, that may be an issue of bylaws and/or legal interpretation and whether the moderator pro tem is equivalent to that of a vice president in RONR.  RONR is clear that unless the bylaws or superior law provide otherwise, the vice president automatically becomes the president in the event of a vacancy in the office of president.

I will note also that you referred to your Board of Education chair as the “chair”, not the “moderator”. Are you referring to your board of education chair as resigning or to the town council moderator as resigning? If you are referring to your Board of Education, what do its governing documents say?

I’m afraid we need more information in order to answer your question and that the answer might actually depend more upon state and local law than the rules in RONR. 

I agree with Mr. Lages that weather what happened was appropriate depends more upon local and state law and the council’s own rules than upon the rules in RONR. I will add that under the rules in RONR, I believe that reconsideration was not proper. Bringing the motion or ordinance up again as a new motion would be proper under RONR, but might well violate whatever open meetings or sunshine laws and requirements for previous notice that your council might be subject to.

On 8/1/2024 at 2:03 PM, Dayle Peterson said:

Our Board approves Consent to Action motions only when necessary per email. No discussion permitted. 
How should these, then, be handled in the next regular meeting?  We list them under “Consent to Action”  Motions but were told we must “ratify” each one at the meeting, even after they’ve been approved.

Thank you  

 

 

Agreeing with Mr. Katz, I’m afraid you are on your own here, both as to how email motions appear in your minutes and as to how and why said actions must be ratified. Is there a written rule somewhere that says this? Where is that rule? What exactly does it say? Is it in your bylaws? Special rules of order? Some other document? Or is it simply “a rule“because someone says it is?  Finally, what is the point of adopting something that doesn’t become effective until it is ratified? What happens if it doesn’t get ratified? Why not just wait and adopt it properly in the first place? I suppose there is a reason, and I am really curious to know what that reason or rationale is. 

On 7/31/2024 at 7:45 PM, Joshua Katz said:

. . .  It seems to me that discussion on the merits of company B was out of order when there was an immediately pending motion to use A. If the gentleman wanted to praise B, he should have moved to amend by substituing B for A, then spoken on his amendment.

Joshua, I disagree. I do agree that the member could have moved to substitute hiring company B rather than company A, but I think it was also perfectly in order, while debating the motion to hire company A, to say in debate as a reason for not hiring company A that “their prices are too expensive and company B is a well respected company that has been in business for over 10 years and will do the work for about half of what company A wants to charge.“  I think comments like that are perfectly appropriate when debating whether to hire company A for a job.

Are you saying that it would be out of order during debate on a motion to hire company A to mention the fact that there are other companies that will probably do the work for less?

On 7/31/2024 at 1:58 PM, Bridge over Troubled Water said:

Typically for our situation, after this type of proposal, the floor is opened to allow for any questions regarding the proposal before the vote. 

Is the meeting where this proposal is being presented a meeting of the committee making the recommendation, or a meeting of the board or membership which will ultimately decide whether to adopt the committee recommendation?

The discussion about company B during debate on the motion to accept the committee recommendation to accept a proposal from company A sounds like it was likely legitimate debate and could actually have been presented as an amendment or a substitute motion. I have not seen anything yet that indicates that discussion was improper. It sounds rather like someone was saying “I think the proposal from company A is too high, I have talked to company B and they have said they can do the job For X amount of money“. That would be proper during debate. 

On 7/31/2024 at 9:57 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

If the report contained more general recommendations rather than specific motions, the Board could ignore them by doing nothing, i.e., actually ignoring them.

I agree, as that is what I said earlier. I still agree, as nothing has been said (or cited) to change my mind.  

Even a quick reading of 51:32 of RONR (12th ed.) will show that it does not say what Mr. Elsman claims it says. It refers specifically to a motion for the adoption of a recommendation contained in the report having been made as stated in the previous section, 51:31.

What exactly do your bylaws say about the frequency or timing of your meetings?  Please quote the provision exactly, don’t paraphrase.

Agreeing with Mr. Novosielski, I continue to be amazed at the number of organizations which believe a vote must be taken on approving the minutes.

Mea culpa: I too, believed that to be true once upon a time, long long ago. I shudder when I think of some of the things I used to believe!

On 7/31/2024 at 8:55 AM, Rob Elsman said:

how exactly would the board go about ignoring them? Wouldn't something have to be done, if only to burn the report in the fireplace? 🔥

Nope. If the report is merely a report (with or without recommendations) and the committee member presenting the report does not make a formal motion, the board can just simply ignore the report. No need to burn it, they can just ignore it.

On 7/31/2024 at 7:35 AM, Weldon Merritt said:

Or the assembly has adopted a motion to have the board approve them.

Yes, perhaps I should have added that to my answer. I tend to doubt that is the case here, but it could be, so thank you.

On 7/31/2024 at 7:33 AM, Weldon Merritt said:

This is a hood summary of the situation. 

What is a “hood” summary?  Does making one require living in a certain neighborhood or perhaps belonging to a certain “group“? 🤔

You still haven’t told us whose minutes you are referring to. It makes a difference. Are they minutes of board meetings? Minutes of general membership meetings? The board approves minutes of board meetings and the general membership approves minutes of general membership meetings. The board has no authority to approve minutes of general membership meetings, unless your bylaws specifically give the board that authority.

On 7/30/2024 at 9:18 AM, Joshua Katz said:

I don't know what this means:

On 7/30/2024 at 9:10 AM, Brett Lemons said:

(NB:  Our normal procedure is to have the Secretary approve the minutes, then they are adopted at the following meeting.

The body, not an individual, approves the minutes.

I agree. The secretary DRAFTS the minutes. The body (or a minutes approval committee) approves the minutes.

On 7/29/2024 at 3:02 PM, Guest cawynne@comcast.net said:

We have a paid staff/contractor who wants to have voting rights at the Committee level.  I disagree. Is this allowed?

Not unless he is actually a member of the committee. It is possible for people who are not members of the organization to be appointed to committees, but appointing nonmembers to committees usually requires the approval of the parent assembly. 

On 7/29/2024 at 12:54 PM, Atul Kapur said:

I thought that's why golf and fishing were invented

A day of the kind of fishing I do – deep sea fishing – is WORK!  you have had a workout by the time you get back home!  Dunno  about golf. 

Now, the kind of fishing my mother used to do — sitting on a creek bank holding a cane pole – that’s relaxing!
 

On 7/29/2024 at 2:34 PM, Guest Michael said:

So, the way we currently run the election is that  the top five vote getters are the winners. Is this considered a plurality vote?

Yes, that is a plurality Vote unless the top five vote getters also each receive a majority of the votes cast

I think that repeating oneself in debate could be considered dilatory and out of order. It would depend on the circumstances. 

I agree that @Steven Britton appears to have gotten it right with his statement that the motion which was made was actually in the nature of a motion to rescind or amend something previously adopted and cannot be reconsidered regardless of who makes a motion to reconsider, or when the motion to reconsider is made.