Richard Brown

I haven't seen the other thread, but I was going to suggest that although a main motion cannot be introduced again at the same meeting, it could probably be reconsidered which permits it to be voted on again.

Can you quote the exact language from your bylaws that give the board the authority to suspend and remove members? Please quote the provision verbatim, don't paraphrase.

Unless the bylaws grant the board the exclusive authority to appoint or instruct this committee, the membership may create or appoint the committee "With Power", meaning it has the power to actually implement its recommendations or do what it was instructed to do without having to get further approval from the appointing body. A committee charged with putting on the Christmas Party would be an example of such a committee. Also, if the committee is already established but was not granted the power to actually do anything other than make recommendations, it can be further instructed to actually carry out its recommendations and to complete the action it is charged with doing. Note: If you bylaws actually say that the committee must get board or membership approval before proceeding, that could change things, but I still believe the assembly could authorize the committee to act with power to carry out its recommendations. That is actually a matter of bylaws interpretation, something we don't do here, and might turn on the exact wording in the bylaws. Edited to add: The additional instructions to the committee would require only a majority vote, per this language from page 177 of RONR: "SUBSEQUENT INSTRUCTIONS. After a question has been referred to a committee and at any time before the committee submits its report, even at another session, the assembly by a majority vote can give the committee additional instructions in reference to the referred question. "

Then where does the board get the authority to order a suspension? What powers do the bylaws grant to the board between meetings of the membership?

Others may disagree, but I believe that as long as the suspension is still in force, it can be amended to shorten the period of suspension. Whether it can be rescinded is another question and I'm not sure of the answer because part of the suspension has already been carried out. An action already completed is normally something that cannot be undone. RONR says that an order of expulsion is final and that for an expelled member to become a member again he must go through the regular process of applying for membership. But, RONR doesn't specifically address whether a suspension can be shortened or rescinded. Question: Do your bylaws state that the Board has the sole or exclusive authority over suspensions? If not, I imagine the general membership could rescind the board's motion of suspension. We really need more information here.

Section 27 of RONR, "Division of a Question", on pages 270-276 Edited to add: Several bylaw amendments could be presented as one motion, i.e., a motion to amend sections 1.4, 3.5, 4.2, and 6.3 of the bylaws... all in one motion. The motion could then be divided as set out in the section on Division of a Question so that each amendment would have to be considered separately.

When that happens, it's time to raise a point of order that debate and amendments can be prohibited only by a 2/3 vote of the assembly to suspend the rules. If the chair rules the point of order not well taken, you appeal from the decision of the chair. It requires a second and is usually subject to somewhat limited debate... each member can speak only once but the chair can speak twice, first and last in debate. It requires a majority vote to overturn the decision of the chair. The chair's decision is sustained on a tie vote.

Kimd55, I still don't understand exactly what happened, but I think I get the general idea. It sounds like the proponents of the bylaw amendments wanted some to be adopted without discussion or debate. There is a way to do that, but from your description of what happened it does not appear that the proper process was followed. The proper way to do something like that is for the assembly to adopt a motion suspending the rules and providing that certain proposed amendments must be voted up or down as is without debate and/or further amendments. It would require a two-thirds vote of the assembly to suspend the rules to do something like that. It cannot be imposed upon the assembly by the proponents, the officers, the board, or anyone else unless the bylaws specifically give them that right. It would be most unusual if your bylaws do that. Edited to add; like Dr. Stackpole, I don't understand exactly what you mean by putting something "in blocks".

Larry, if you are talking about a public body such as a city council or similar entity, it is almost certainly subject to your state's "open meetings" or "sunshine" laws. Those laws typically require that the agenda for public meetings be publicly posted a certain number of days in advance of the meeting. RONR contains no such rule. Under RONR, the two main reasons for giving notice of a motion that a member intends to introduce at the next meeting are for proposed bylaw amendments (which usually require previous notice) and notice of a motion to amend or rescind something previously adopted to reduce the vote requirement from a two thirds vote (or the vote of a majority of the entire membership) to a regular majority vote. Not exactly. RONR says that the chair DOES ask if there is any new business. In the standard order of business, "New Business" follows "Unfinished Business and General Orders". From page 360: "New Business. After unfinished business and general orders have been disposed of, the chair asks, "Is there any new business?" See pages 121-123 for how (and when) to give previous notice. As Dr. Stackpole stated, only a majority vote is required for the adoption of most main motions. RONR actually requires previous notice only in a very few limited circumstances, primarily bylaw amendments, adoption and amendment of special rules of order, etc. When previous notice is given of a motion to amend or rescind something previously adopted, it is usually just to lower the vote threshold for the adoption of the motion at the next meeting. If we aren't understanding what you are asking, please try again. Edited to add: It is also possible that your city charter requires previous notice of some or all business to come before the council.

Agreeing with Mr Novosielski, no attempt should be made to summarize the discussion. The minutes should be a record of what was done, not what was said or what was discussed. Also, I believe that when Dr Goodwiller said "the latter", he meant decisions made, not discussion and decisions made.

Guest Marianne, I don't really understand exactly what you are trying to do. But, I do agree with Dr. Stackpole that you must follow the amendment process of your bylaws to make any change, no matter how minor.

Oh, it's quite common, Zev. As Dr. Stackpole said in the post above, paying your dues is frequently all that is necessary to join an organization.

Katydid, do you ever vote on motions at meetings without also allowing email and mail ballots on the motion? In other words, must each and every main motion be held open 30 days for mail ballots? You can never make a binding decision on anything at a meeting? Edited to add: I understand allowing mail (and email) ballots on such things as bylaw amendments and elections. But, requiring it on everything??? Is that really what you do?

Katydid, it is also important to know exactly what the wording was on the written petition/request for a bylaw amendment that was signed by the four members. Others might disagree, but the way I read your rules, the proposed amendment as circulated on the ballot must be the same language as was on the petition/request. I read your bylaws to say that the proposed language must first be approved by the board or by ten percent of the members. I also wonder where the language for the second and third items on the ballot came from. Were they... or at least the second one... also on the written petition/request?

It is my understanding that the guild has 40 members. 20 members were in attendance at the meeting and four of them signed the petition. That is ten percent of the total guild membership if I am understanding the situation. Note: upon re-reading the initial post, Katydid did not actually say the guild has 40 members, but said that 4 members is ten percent of the membership. So, I'm assuming the guild has somewhere between 31 and 40 members. Any number in that range would require the signatures of four members. It might help if we can be told exactly how many members the guild has (or how many it had at the date of the meeting). If the guild had 41 members, five signatures would be required, as four signatures is less than ten percent of 41. N

Guest katydid, I'm not sure if any of us can add to the answers that have already been provided, but if you will quote to us exactly what your bylaws say about how to amend them, we might be able to provide a little more advice. Please quote the bylaw provision regarding amendments and notice exactly, verbatim. Do not paraphrase.

Yes. That's a minor but important distinction. The issue is decided by a majority vote... that is, the vote of a majority of the members present and voting. If 50 people are present and 20 vote yes, 15 vote no 15 abstain, that is a majority vote even though it is less than a majority of the members present.

I agree with all of the previous responses but will add that the board (or, probably, the membership) can authorize someone to attend and participate in the board meetings to almost the same extent as a member but without the right to vote. If it is desired to have that additional "voice" on the board until such time as the vacancy is filled, that is one way to accomplish it. By a majority vote that person can be authorized to attend the board meetings and to speak in them. By suspending the rules with a two thirds vote, that person can also be authorized to participate in debate. However, that person cannot be given the right to vote. Whether such a person could make motions is perhaps unclear, but it is my opinion that he could be authorized to do everything a member could do except vote. That could be accomplished by means of a motion to "suspend the rules and permit John Doe to attend and participate fully in board meetings, including the right to debate and make motions, but not the right to vote, until such time as the vacancy created by Jack Smith's resignation is filled". As others have said, that person can also be authorized to perform the administrative duties of the resigned member until such time as the vacancy is filled. Of course, a current sitting member of the board, rather than a non-board member, could be authorized to perform those duties temporarily even if its in addition to his existing duties.

Agreeing with Mr. Huynh, you cannot do any of the things you asked about without authorization in the bylaws.

My thanks to guest student for saying the things I wanted to say but involved too much typing on a cell phone!

Ratify the action at the next meeting. From page 124 of RONR regarding when the motion to ratify is appropriate. What happened falls squarely within the second bulleted point: "The motion to ratify (also called approve or confirm) is an incidental main motion that is used to confirm or make valid an action already taken that cannot become valid until approved by the assembly. Cases where the procedure of ratification is applicable include: • action improperly taken at a regular or properly called meeting at which no quorum was present; • action taken at a special meeting with regard to business not mentioned in the call of that meeting; • action taken by officers, committees, delegates, or subordinate bodies in excess of their instructions or authority; [page 125] • action taken by a local unit that requires approval of the state or national organization; or • action taken by a state or national society subject to approval by its constituent units."

Since the motion was not specific as to when it is being postponed to, I would take the position that it was postponed until the next meeting. That is because it is improper to postpone a motion beyond the next meeting, assuming that meeting will take place within a quarterly time interval.

Good points, Atul. In regard to your question, I think this depends on the applicable bylaws... which, in the example you used, would probably be the national (or highest level) bylaws. I don't think a national organization could exempt a local or state or district unit member from payment of those dues without authorization in the bylaws.

That is something outside the scope of this forum and not covered in RONR. It's possible, though, that some members might weigh in with personal advice or experience or a link to an outside source, so stay tuned.

We (including myself) are commingling a discussion of Guest Dave's situation as presented in this thread with my question as presented in the other thread in the Advanced Discussion forum. That probably is not very helpful as the two situations are not identical. The biggest differences are probably that in Dave's case in THIS thread, there was no special meeting called and we don't yet know if this dinner gathering was considered an official meeting or if any action was actually taken (as opposed to just discussing something).