Richard Brown

If the motion has already been adopted, and you are in the same meeting, a motion to reconsider should be moved by someone who voted on the prevailing side. If the motion was adopted at a previous session, any member can move to amend something previously adopted. It requires a majority vote if previous notice is given or, without notice, it 2/3 Vote or the vote of a majority of the entire membership. The person who made the original motion need not agree to the change and has no more say than any other member once the motion is in the hands of the assembly or has been adopted.

Huh??? It's either the same session or a subsequent session. There is no such thing as a subsequent session being a part of the previous session. A motion cannot be renewed at the same session as the one in which it was rejected. It may, however, be renewed at any subsequent session (not just at the next session).

Um, not exactly. A motion cannot be renewed at the same session at which it was originally proposed. It can be renewed only at a subsequent session. RONR pages 88 and 336.

Why would the original vote on the motion have required a two-thirds vote to pass?

What is all of this 2/3 business? The motion is simply introduced again as a new motion and should require the same vote to be adopted that any other motion would, presumably, a majority vote. Although making the same motion again at a future meeting may be referred to as renewing the motion, it is essentially simply making the motion again. Nothing is being reconsidered. It requires an ordinary majority vote unless for some reason it requires a two-thirds vote for adoption, such as a bylaw Amendment.

Agreeing with the others, the assembly should not be approving the treasurer's report. That is a no no. The chair should thank him for his report and then move on to the next item of business. The report itself should be placed on file or turned over to the Auditors for audit. It is the report of the Auditors which should ultimately be approved. Edited to add: the auditor's report, depending on the complexity of the transactions, does not need to be anything formal or fancy. It could consist of one or two members who review the treasurer's report and bank statements on the spot and say yes, we have reviewed the treasurer's report and find it to be in order.

Show her the statement from the introduction to RONR that Tom Coronite posted, along with the state law directing that the rules in RONR be followed. Or show her this thread.

Addressing only one point for now, the rule in RONR prohibiting interruptions and motions during voting applies only after voting is actually in progress, after the first vote is cast. It does not apply while preparing to vote.

Correct.

I interpret the bylaw provision the same way JJ does, namely, that the society sets dues by way of motion... standing rule or otherwise. It does not require a bylaw amendment. The only question is whether the standing rule provision for automatic 3 percent dues increases annually violates the bylaws. In my opinion, it does not. The bylaws call for the membership to set the annual dues, not necessarily to set them annually. I think they complied with the bylaws.

Guest MYC, perhaps I'm just missing something, but I believe more information would be helpful. For example, what exactly is this "Commission Board"? Is it some type of public body? If so, your question might covered by superior state and local laws governing the "commission board" and its meetings. It will also help if you can provide a bit more information regarding what you mean by "revisit" the topic at a later meeting. Discussion for the sake of discussion, without a motion to actually do or adopt something, is usually prohibited absent a suspension of the rules or a special rule of order permitting it. However, public bodies are often subject to state law provisions regarding public comment.

Joshua, I was actually responding to transpower but somehow failed to quote the post that I was responding to and the system would not let me edit to add it at the top of my post

@Transpower, Why do you believe this rule violates the bylaws? Don't you agree that this is ultimately a question of bylaws interpretation which is for the society to do? Edited to add: Aw, shucks. I had intended to quote transpower but forgot to do it and now the system won't let me add it. I was responding to Transpower's quote above

I tend to agree. I also agree that what was done was probably not anticipated by the drafters, but I see no clear requirement that a change in the annual dues must be voted on separately each year. Ultimately, this is probably a matter of bylaws interpretation which the organization itself must do.

I agree that this might be a slightly different situation than the original election (original vote), but I think the same principle applies. This is in essence a new election. Just as nominations can be reopened and candidates may announce they are withdrawing and the method of conducting the second election can all be changed prior to the new election (new vote), I believe that a bylaw amendment regarding the conduct of elections or qualifications for office adopted between the dates of the two elections takes effect immediately and applies to the new election. We might sometimes call it a "re-vote" or "second ballot" or some other term, but it is, in reality, a new election. The first election failed to produce a winner. RONR even says, at the bottom of page 439, that if a candidate fails to receive a majority vote on the first ballot, the chair is to declare "No election". Perhaps this is ultimately a question of bylaws interpretation, but based on the rules in RONR, it seems clear to me that the new bylaw provision applies to this new election.

I agree. I disagree somewhat with this statement, as I believe the board does have a right to review the bylaws, either itself or by means of a committee, with an eye toward making proposing recommended bylaw changes to the membership. It is not at all unusual for proposed bylaw amendments to originate with the board of directors.

Nope! You got it right. I misread your post. My apologies!

Ah, you are right, Tom. I misread his post thinking it said there is no such thing as a main motion to create a blank. Can I blame it on tired eyes that are still feeling the effects of the anesthesia from a colonoscopy and the small type on a cell phone? My apologies, Zev. I misread your post.

Oh? What about page 163 lines 5-11?

Or not, if it is the desire that the new bylaw provision apply to the new election. It is often the case that a proposed bylaw amendment is taken up by the assembly immediately prior to the elections at an annual meeting so that the amendment will apply to the soon to be conducted election

Are you referring to having co-chairs? Or to what amounts to a chairman and vice chairman? Or something altogether different?

I've had the problem several times. It seems to occur randomly. On at least one occasion, rebooting my computer did seem to help. On another occasion, it did not. Also, the problem seems to occur more often when I'm on my laptop than when using my cell phone. I posted about it in the section for comments about the Forum itself. Edited to add: you might want to add your own comment in that thread so that they powers-that-be see that it is an issue. BTW, I'm doing this on my cell phone

While I don't disagree at all with Dr. Stackpole's response, I believe we need more information in order to properly answer the question. For example, exactly what body is meeting? Is it a board meeting to which members of the community have been invited? Is it a community meeting at which some board members might appear for the purpose of providing information and answering questions? btw, you mention "board meeting" and "trustees" taking their seats. I assume the "trustees" you mentioned are the board members. If not, then we need to have that cleared up, too.

Huh? I think you two are talking past each other. Or maybe I don't follow what you are saying to each other. I agree with Gary Novosielski that ad hoc (special) committees can be created without specific authorization in the bylaws. It is standing committees, not special committees, that cannot be created without bylaws authorization if the bylaws name any standing committees. Special (ad hoc) committees can be created by the society unless prohibited by the bylaws.

Absent a superior rule to the contrary, people who are not members of the body which is meeting, in this case the board, have no right to speak whatsoever except by permission of the board. The board can generally set whatever limits and conditions it desires on such comments. That is sometimes handled by the adoption of a rule regarding comments by non-members and other times is handled on a case-by-case basis. Non-members can be permitted to speak with a majority vote or by unanimous consent. such requests are often handled by the chair without objection. Non-members may be granted the right to participate in debate by suspending the rules which requires a two-thirds vote. Note some state laws require that certain bodies, such as homeowner associations, permit people who are members of the association, but not of the board, and an opportunity to address the board at board meetings. Edited to add: non-members who violate the rules or cause a disturbance may be ejected upon order of the chair, but a member may object to the removal and require a vote. In such a case, the guest can be ejected by a majority vote.