Dan Honemann

Of course. That's why I said that under such circumstances reconsideration is a "possibility".

Based solely upon what you have posted, it seems rather clear that the amendment which was adopted is in full force and effect.

Oh, I think you can expect that some change will be made in this troublesome language on page 499, but until then I think it best to construe it to mean that the right of committee members to call a meeting if the chair refuses to do so is not restricted to the committee's first meeting.

I'm always a bit unhappy about being asked to respond to questions when all relevant facts are not provided, and in this instance we still haven't told whether or not the meeting to which this resolution was postponed will be the next meeting in a continuation of the same session during which it was postponed. If so, reconsideration of the vote or votes by which the undesirable portions of the resolution and its preamble were inserted is a possibility, as has already been noted. If not, then when the resolution is brought back before the assembly, motions can be made to amend it and its preamble by striking out the undesirable portions.

I think the answer to this question is yes, a member's rights can be suspended through disciplinary proceedings, but I'm not sure what you mean when you refer to the "assemblies can't constrain future assemblies" principle. I suppose you may be referring to the one mentioned on page 87, lines 4-11, but I don't see what it has to do with any of this.

My guess is that this thread has languished for a few days without further response because virtually everyone agrees with Mr. Katz that whenever an original main motion has been divided before there has been any debate on it and before any subsidiary motion other than Lay on the Table has been stated by the chair, an objection to the consideration of any one of the parts into which it has been divided can be raised whenever that part becomes the immediately pending question provided that the objection is raised before there has been any debate on that part, and before any subsidiary motion applied to it (other than Lay on the Table) has been stated by the chair. Looks right to me.

And by the way, are you sure that the next meeting of this County Board will be a continuation of the same session as the one in which this motion was defeated? Normally, the next monthly meeting would constitute a new session, but it is true that county boards and city councils often operate under rules which extend the length of sessions for a substantial period of time, often for a year.

As previously noted, this is nonsense. Your board may be operating under rules which require such notice, but there is no such requirement in Robert's Rules. Just as the minutes of the first meeting should reflect exactly what actions were taken by the board at that meeting, the minutes of the second meeting should state exactly the wording used by the chair when putting to a vote the question on the member's request (RONR, 11th ed., p. 44, ll. 19-24; p. 469, ll. 10-21). It is not the secretary's job to characterize this motion in any way, such as referring to it as a motion to reconsider, or to rescind, or to ratify, and it is certainly not the secretary's job to reword it in some way in order for it to make more sense. Have your minutes reflect exactly the wording of the motion or motions voted on, as used by the chair when putting them to a vote.

I'm afraid that you will need to address this question, which concerns the meaning and effect of your state's statute, to an attorney in order to determine whether or not any administrative or judicial gloss sheds light on your question. Action taken in violation of procedural rules prescribed by applicable state law is null and void. Please understand, however, that what you have quoted from Sec. 47 of the 1915 edition has nothing to do with any of this.

No, I don't think so. I don't think that this right to participate in deliberation and discussion carries with it the right to make motions or raise points of order.

Based solely upon what you have posted it would appear that the answer to your first question is no, the Chairman, in his capacity as Chair of the meeting, without any determination from the quorum of the Board, did not satisfy the requirement in the bylaws relating to restriction of participation by nonmembers. However, in view of the fact that no point of order was raised at the time, it would also appear that the motions declared to have been adopted are valid and enforceable, assuming that they themselves do not conflict with the bylaws. In such a case, the procedure used in their consideration may be in conflict with the procedure mandated by the bylaws, but this, in my opinion, will not, in and of itself, invalidate the actions taken.

You're right (except that you may have meant to refer to page 251 rather than page 250 🙂). Take a look at what is said on page 12, line 8 to page 15, line 3, and on page 565, line 5 to page 566, line 16.

Take a look at RONR, 11th ed., p. 467, line 25 to page 468, line. 8.

No offense taken, of course, because parliamentary law is not the sort of law with which lawyers are concerned, and is not something which is taught in law schools. Ohm's law isn't taught in law school either. 🙂 Some rules of parliamentary procedure may be incorporated into statutes regulating the conduct of business in the deliberative assemblies of certain organizations, but this is then a part of the corporate law, constitutional law, labor law, or whatever, which is applicable to such organizations, and is the sort of law with which lawyers are expected to be familiar.

Oh, I think that Atul Kapur has it right. What is said on page 577 makes it rather clear that, in the ordinary case, if a society's assembly has adopted a budget which allows for the expenditure of $200.00 for some purpose, the society's board may not authorize the expenditure of any greater amount for that purpose, even to "deal with contingencies that may develop" (such as a leaky pipe, for example). The society's assembly may itself authorize the expenditure of a greater amount, but without previous notice it will require either a two-thirds vote or a majority vote of the entire membership in order to do so. If the latter were not the case, the former would not be the case. And yes, of course some organizations may have rules which provide otherwise, but I think the questions originally asked presuppose the ordinary case. And yes, officers or boards may take actions in an emergency which they have no authority to take, hoping that their actions will be ratified, but that's quite beside the point. The income side of a budget is a horse of an entirely different color. A society may control its expenditures.

Well done.

So even although a budget has been adopted that authorizes the expenditure of certain amounts for designated items (as is usually the case), this imposes no limits at all upon what expenditures may subsequently be authorized to be made for these designated items simply by adoption of motions to do so by majority vote? It seems to me that there's something wrong with this idea. 🙂

So you insist that an application cannot "carry" a person's endorsement (support, backing, approval, whatever) of someone's application without that person actually signing it. It can't simply say that Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Katz (both members in good standing) support this applicant. No doubt about it, eh? 🙂

Oh, the word "endorsement" can certainly mean more things than just this.

Your question (actually, you asked one question in the topic title and a somewhat different one in the body of your post) hasn't been answered because you've come to the wrong place looking for the answer. As previously noted, your dog club will have to decide for itself the meaning of this provision in your bylaws. No one here has any way of knowing whether or not it means that signatures (or lines for signatures) are required. In this connection, take a look at pages 588-91 in RONR (11th ed.).

No problem, you're forgiven. 🙂

This isn't what we have been told happened. If you wish to ask a question based upon your own set of facts, please start your own Topic.

What do you mean by "a motion to renew"? There's no motion called a "motion to renew" in RONR. But yes, if a main motion is rejected during one session, any member can make the same motion again at any later session* unless it has become absurd. Take a careful look at Section 38 in RONR (11th ed.). ---------------------------------------------- * If you meant to ask if the defeated main motion can be made again during the same session, the answer is no, although a motion to reconsider the vote by which it was defeated might be made by any member who voted against it. Take a look at Section 37 for details.

I'd suggest that an even greater amount of context be provided, but I'm afraid that it may make matters even worse.

And I think you must be referring to a committee, not a subcommittee.