Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

612 profile views
  1. Very informative and very clear! Thank you all for your responses!
  2. Thank you all for your responses. It is clear that reports should not be approved, with that being said what harm is there in approving them? I am not advocating to approve them, but if I am going to recommend not approving them I will be asked why we should change the way it is currently done.
  3. Bruce, Yes, the reports for the Annual Meeting go out a week in advance.
  4. Weldon, Thank you for the feedback, it is greatly appreciated. And for what it is worth I agree that all reports shouldn't be approved at the same time, the same way I don't agree with casting a unanimous ballot, but I have lost that battle long ago. jstackpo, The approving of the TR is what I was writing about, not the Auditor's Report. It has been common practice at our church to do that for as long as I have been a member.
  5. At our Annual Meeting, in an effort to save time the Chairman asked for a motion to approve all reports. Whether good or bad, this was done so that all the reports wouldn't have to be read through and take so much time. However, in that group of reports was the Treasurer's Report and it was approved without the Treasurer presenting the report, which is usually done. Later in the meeting the chairman was informed that the Treasurer did not give the report and therefore was invited up to give the report. Upon completion of the report the Chairman asked again for a motion to approve the Treas
  6. Josh, are you saying that speaking rights for non-members would be done by following that? Or would that be to suspend the rules? And to ask a second question pertaining, if the you can suspend the rules for the order of business can the same be done for other areas of the bylaws such expenditures, voting requirements, quorum etc.? Thak you for your input!
  7. Hello all, Our Bylaws provide an order of business for our annual meeting and also states that Roberts Rules of Order be followed at all meetings. With that being said, if the assembly desires to add something to the order of business can that be done? If so what is the correct procedure? Because the order of business is outline in the bylaws I wasn't sure if that can be suspended or amended. This is a new area for me so I am looking to learn. In Chapter 2 it would appear as though it cannot be done but I am looking for some insight. For example, the order of business in
  8. Thank you all for your replies and insight it is greatly appreciated. We will work on amending to make it less ambiguous.
  9. Our church's bylaws state, "the Annual Meeting is to take place during the fourth week of January." As a church our meetings have always taken place on a Sunday, if not we would never get anyone to attend the meetings. With that being said, January 20th would be Sunday in the fourth week of January, at least that is what I presume. On Sunday January 13, it had been announced during church service that our Annual Meeting would be taking place on Sunday January 27, I look at that it is the fifth week in January. As secretary, I had submitted the order of business/proposed agenda on Jan
  10. Richard, that is correct, confessing members are just simply members, there are no non-confessing members. Simply put, we have members and non members Unfortunately the added "confessing" part can confuse. Thank you all for your feedback.
  11. Yes, I understand that abstentions are not votes. The question is about the qualifying part of the bylaw stating 2/3 vote of the eligible confessing members. Example, previously thirty votes cast and twenty were yes, then that two-thirds would pass the amendment. Now as it reads, thirty votes cast and twenty yes, but our membership is 100 then that is not two-thirds so the amendment would not pass. Instead it would require 67 yes votes.
  12. Hello, About a year ago our church had done some Constitution and Bylaw amendments. Below is a part of our bylaw amendment process. My understanding of Chapter XIII Voting in Roberts Rules of Order is that two-thirds when not qualified is, two-thirds of votes cast by persons eligible to vote. Our previous Article IX (the strike through) appears to not have had a qualifying statement, therefore, it would be two-thirds of votes cast. Now it would appear to have a qualifying statement of two-thirds of the members voting to pass a bylaw amendment. Example, previously thirty votes cast an
  13. There should be a motion to amend something previously adopted first, another member will second the motion, the chairman then states the question. Then it is open for debate. The assembly will then decide whether to adopt/carry or reject the motion.
  14. Richard, thank you for the advice and feedback it is appreciated. I agree with the above posts, it doesn't make sense to do what is being asked/told of me. As I pointed out it becomes completely subjective what I would begin to write down, what one thinks is important others may not and vice versa. Many times at a meeting something is said and a member will look at me jokingly and say "don't put that in the minutes". I usually respond with "as long as it isn't in a motion I won't." At this point I will stay the course as I have, writing down what was done not what was discussed.
  • Create New...