Joshua Katz

Wouldn't stopping it also raise the same problem? "Hey, you can't talk about that, we said during the ES that..."

It violates the very purpose of a deliberative assembly, as described in RONR.

Perhaps I'm crazy, but it would seem to me that if the motion is to amend something previously adopted, and what is previously adopted is the, say, July minutes, then once that motion carries, the thing previously adopted - the July minutes - should be so amended.

I can't follow what the member is saying, but I agree that if the bylaws require $500 to be in the account, any motion to keep it at $400 is out of order.

If the individual is not a member of the organization, then he, by definition, cannot make any motions, including motions to amend the bylaws.

You might want to look at pp. 650-651, to which you were referred earlier, and which contain the process for putting a point of order and appeal to the assembly when the chair has (in the view of the member, incorrectly) ruled them dilatory.

Well, all I said was it's okay to differ from RONR. It's hard for me to say if it's harmless without knowing more about the organization. On the other hand, you bring up something I hadn't noticed originally: the rule doesn't exactly say "entire membership." I agree with your reading, but I think it's possible the organization didn't mean that and doesn't want that, in which case they certainly should change the language.

To address what I suspect might be the underlying question: it is fine for your rules to give a different threshold for this than RONR (this rule not only gives a different threshold, but a different basis too). Your bylaws prevail in that case.

RONR doesn't talk about bank accounts, although your own rules might. It seems rather commonsense to me, though, that two members of your board cannot open a private bank account and put organization funds in it - I think there's a word for that. It helps to remember that, aside from executive functions and those in your rules, members of a board have no actual power as individuals. Their power in the organization is to vote on board decisions.

I agree with Mr. Brown that I'm sure there is a way. I also suspect that figuring out and executing that way, without it being in the bylaws, will take about half an hour. Regardless, there being a way doesn't mean it's a good idea. I certainly would not vote to approve a budget if I were not permitted to debate it and if amendments were prohibited. If I walked into a meeting, and 2/3 of those present voted on such rules, I would just vote no on the budget. On what basis have you instructed voting members that the Q&A session is the time and place to ask for ... refining of the document? Unless it appears somewhere in your rules, you have no reason to be giving such an instruction, since according to RONR (which I assume is your parliamentary authority) the time and place for such refinement is the meeting at which the document is to be adopted, or at least, that is one time and place for it. If the Q&A sessions is not a meeting where business can be conducted, trying to shove disagreement over there is an attempt, whatever your intent, to limit your members rights to control of their communally owned property. Also, you're trying to require people to be at two, well, things, in order to have any input on an item of business at the second one. Similarly, I'd be concerned that someone might want to move an amendment based on the discussion taking place at the meeting. There's also tactical reasons I may want to, where no notice is required, move an amendment at the meeting, and I believe your members should have that right, too. If the group, though, wishes to adopt such rules, it should do so. It seems that it hasn't, and that, instead, you (whoever is included in the plural here) have been instructing them not to exercise their rights. I think that is improper. I also think you should hold your meeting at a time when full consideration is possible, particularly if you're asking members to adopt a budget.

Without disagreeing with SaintCad, on the more limited question about minutes - yes. The Secretary produces a draft of the minutes for approval. You can make requests of the Secretary all you want, but ultimately, they put into the draft what they want to put in. The assembly can amend them while pending (or later, via the motion to amend something previously adopted), and can order anything put in that they want (although that doesn't make it a good idea), but an individual member cannot insist that something they said or did make it into the minutes. Further, the minutes should record what was done, not what was said - but what was done means actions taken by the assembly, not the physical actions of people present at the meeting. So, unless some action was taken to discipline the interrupter, or a point of order was raised, or something happened, a presenter not finishing their report should not, in my view, be in the minutes. The assembly didn't decide that you shouldn't finish - you did. The assembly took no action, it appears, regarding the interrupter, so the minutes shouldn't report on them in a way that the assembly has not approved.

There is no need to list the votes in the minutes unless there has been a roll call vote. Thus, the minutes shouldn't list all the members in attendance as "unanimous voters," it should simply say that the motion carried or not. To seek unanimous consent where there is not expected to be controversy, the chair should ask "is there objection to...?" If there is objection, you proceed to a vote by asking for ayes and nays. In the absence of objection, though, the motion is adopted. The person you mention is free to always object, of course, and force a vote. If you've held a voice vote and asked for the ayes, then you should indeed ask for the nays as well (but not the abstentions). In a voice vote, you can't be sure that everyone shouted when you asked for the ayes. But you also should not record the number voting each way, for the same reason - you don't know exactly how many votes there were.

Yet it appears that your club was organized and certified without adopting any such thing. It would seem that the parent organization screwed up in giving the charter without seeing that its requirements were met, but their act of giving that charter can't be deemed to have nullified or changed your Constitution.

I continue to find this puzzling. However, in this context, I just wanted to point out that what we're saying may not be of all that much help since the question appears to be about a public body, and likely there are some statutes imposing rules.

If the President can appoint all committees, two things follow. First, what if the President creates a special committee and appoints people to it? Certainly he can then discharge that committee. Second, suppose he appoints members of a special committee appointed in some other way, and then decides to remove them. Certainly he can do that, and if there's no other way to populate it, while he can't make it go away, he can certainly keep it from doing anything in particular.

Oh, I'm not so sure. I think it depends how the committee got established.

1. The assembly can decide what to do. If it adjourns with business pending, that item will come up as unfinished business at the next session, if within a quarterly time interval (and each person can again speak twice). The chair does not unilaterally decide. Most assemblies will choose to move all pending questions, though. 2. No, he cannot decide this unilaterally. Either the assembly needs to adopt a motion to that effect, or a special rule of order can be made (so that it applies at more than one meeting).

So have them arrested. (Note: Don't actually do that.) Does the city have a city attorney?

What matters for RONR is what the chair said when putting the question. RONR says nothing about the text signed by a Mayor. Since this is a public body, there likely are laws bearing on the question.

So if a motion is passed, those opposed can, before the next meeting, call their friends, who are also opposed, and let them know that, while there will be no effort to rescind (requiring notice), they intend, by a majority vote, to overturn that motion, simply by taking it out of the minutes? They can, by giving this pseudo-notice only to the right people, gain a temporary majority that is not representative of the body. Meanwhile, I, who acted in reliance on the motion between meetings, turn out to have acted at my own risk, because history is altered at the next meeting? None of that sounds right to me, or, at least, it isn't what I'd like to see happen. I suppose I don't see what it adds to say that failure to include the motion in the minutes doesn't mean it didn't happen if such a thing is going to be allowed. Nor do I see what it adds to say people shouldn't be dishonest, if dishonesty is rewarded.

So what am I to do if I know full well the motion was adopted? What is the effect of the assembly agreeing that no such motion was adopted?

There is certainly no authority for such a claim in RONR. According to those rules, business is brought before the assembly by way of a motion. Once a motion has been made, debate is held on that motion, at the close of which the matter comes to a vote (during debate, other motions may modify the motion, change the way debate is conducted, speed things up, slow things down, or dispose of the motion in some other way, such as by postponing it or sending it to a committee). Many organizations seem to have the idea that it is better to engage in lots of round-about debate, and only rarely (with hushed voices at the momentous occasion) present a motion. This is a very good way to not get things done. It sounds like your organization has taken it a step further by lettings its president decide, based on the debate, if there is something to be voted on. (There is ample historical support for this, it was common before the current system of parliamentary procedure was introduced for debate to occur, and the chair to try to determine, from the debate, what question should be considered, then put that to a vote. People found it didn't work all that well, which is why we use our current system instead.)

No.

1. The minutes in their entirety are what was previously adopted and is now being amended. 2. The contents of an email sent to the board, together with anything said about it, does not belong in the minutes. The ideal motion to amend here would be to strike this whole business. If a name is misspelled, one would hope that would be caught prior to adoption, but, indeed, if not, it should be corrected. Your organization can avoid much of this hassle, though, by not including things in the minutes that do not belong there. I do not remember the particulars of this question. If inaccurate answers are given, and for whatever reason, what was said is included in the minutes, then it would indeed be improper to change the minutes to reflect the "correct" answer rather than the one given at the meeting. Ideally, though, neither should be in the minutes.

Publicly available information may be discussed (if it is mentioned in ES that the sky is blue, I need not refrain from repeating that information) although it may not be attributed to the ES.