Joshua Katz

Without offering an opinion on whether or not this motion violates the bylaws, since I haven't read them, a motion that contradicts the bylaws is subject to a point of order. It is a continuing breach, and so can be objected to at any time it remains in effect. So, in essence, yes, it is 'considered void,' but only after a point of order is raised and ruled upon at a meeting. It doesn't need to be rescinded if the point of order is ruled well-taken. If it is not ruled well-taken, you can appeal.

I would incline towards that view, but even so, it can't be postponed beyond the next meeting, or beyond a quarterly time period.

No, you're not alone.

Who the hell is he to allow or not allow? Tell him to sit down and shut up. If he has a point of order, he can make it, and it can be found not well taken. That said, the postponement will not survive the next meeting (or a quarterly time period if that happens first) and after that, the business is dead and you can make whatever motions you like. Until then, you can't make another motion on the topic until the matter is discharged. Or, some might think that, since the motion to postpone was not well-formed, nothing was postponed at all. Either way, alderman 4 is wrong.

So if we say that they can be amended by either body, what follows? If either body makes an amendment, the amendment is there, right? So one can make an amendment, then the other can remove it, and infinitum? I suppose. But what does that have to do with this question, where the board has adopted an amendment, and wants to know if it needs to also be approved by the membership? It would seem to me that the answer is no, but the body can amend it back out if they so choose.

This is, ultimately, a question of bylaw interpretation - your organization has (very) customized rules, in which your organization are the "experts," not us. Here is the line of thought to go down, though - you say that the meeting on the second Thursday is the "regular" meeting. Where in your rules - bylaws, rules of order, standing rules, etc., is this meeting established? Wherever that rule is found, what, if anything, is said about the fourth Thursday?

I seem to agree with Mr. Goldsworthy.

I probably would, although I likely wouldn't include "with a complaint." I certainly wouldn't include the contents of the complaint, though.

No.

I don't see what you're asking. If I give a proxy to a person who isn't at the meeting, there's nothing for me to be disqualified from - I simply haven't done the thing that proxies are about - giving it to someone who is going.

People who are not present do not count towards quorum.

It seems something is missing here.

True, but you know how schools are. There could be a catch-all provision that the advisor is in charge and can do whatever they want - or can unilaterally decide who is fit for office.

It is mandated to ask for the affirmative first. The situation you describe shouldn't be misleading, because the people reading the minutes should hopefully understand what unanimous means - and if not, you can help them, now that you know. Of course, it's not necessary for the minutes to say anything other than that the motion passed, and I see no real reason it. If those who are opposed choose not to vote, though, then they haven't registered their opposition.

All qualifications for holding office must be in the bylaws. If the bylaws do not require the extra class, then it is not required for being an officer. However, a full answer would also hinge on whether the advisor is given such power, either in the bylaws or in rules of the parent organization or applicable procedural statutes.

None of us know if it violates the bylaws, for many reasons. However, if in fact a motion violates the bylaws, then a point of order should be raised.

Well, when you put it that way, it would seem odd to say that rejecting a motion is not a decision made.

No, that is not my problem. My problem is with the fact that a defeated motion is to be treated as a decision, rather than as failing to take action. Or, maybe, my problem is with saying that the board may not contravene a decision of the body, without further defining that term, so that deciding not to pass a motion is treated as a decision.

I find this somewhat troublesome. Suppose the motion is to send the jellybeans, and the vote is tied. A group that fails to constitute a majority (those opposed) has then made a decision on the part of the assembly, binding its board. Furthermore, if there is, in fact, such a split, the result of the vote will depend on which way the motion was phrased. If, instead, someone had moved to prohibit the board from taking action to send jellybeans, which would also be in order, and that motion had failed (with the same tie vote), wouldn't the result then be that the assembly had decided not to give such an instruction, and so the board is free to send such jellybeans? Is a person who opposes the jellybean activity, then, obliged to offer a motion to send the jellybeans, after seeing the tie vote, in order to get the result desired? And isn't it odd that he can do so?

Suppose the situation is the one I imagined: the body doesn't want to do it, but fears its board will. (In my experience, people tend to distrust boards.) The organization consider and rejects a motion to send those jellybeans. Since the motion was rejected, no action was taken. Now, page 482 says "no action of the board can alter or conflict with any decision made by the assembly..." Arguably, voting down the motion was a decision, and so prevents the board from sending jelly beans. The board, though, can take up a similar motion without causing a conflict or alteration. If the assembly had passed a motion, though, directing its board not to send jellybeans to anyone, there would be more certainty that the idea has been killed. Keep in mind that I'm not actually advocating for passing a motion not to do something, in the usual sense. I'm talking about adopting a motion that does something - it definitively says not to do something else. I wouldn't advocate for a motion like "not to send jelly beans."

I'm not sure I see the relevance of your example and background, since nothing in your example is about minutes. Be that as it may, I will assume that by "member" you mean board member. A body has the right to adopt its own agenda. When the agenda is pending, it may be amended (by a majority vote), and after adoption, it may be amended by a 2/3 vote. So, yes, as a body it can do what it wants as far as what to include, and the member is free to make relevant motions as well. The member cannot force an unwilling assembly to consider an agenda item simply by submitting it by some date. This is all, of course, unless your organization or relevant statutes provide other rules. As to the second question, if an applicable procedural law says you can, then you can. The law will, of course, have to be interpreted in the specific context, which is a task for a lawyer, not us.

Seems to me it would be just as effective to not make any motion. If some members DO want to send out those jellybeans, then yes, the motion will be made and defeated, but if no one wants to, I see no reason it should be considered. If, on the other hand, there is a fear that the board will decide to do it, then the assembly can adopt a motion that, under no circumstances, is the organization to send jellybeans to everyone in the US.

Maybe he listened to the voicemail, said "Oh, right," made a note of the date and time, and left it at that.

The board is, except in a few situations, subservient to the membership. The membership can impose rules on the board which the board must follow. Since the board is more involved with the running of the organization, and more familiar with the details, I believe it would be better to phrase them as recommendations.

What makes you suspect he won't be at the meeting to present them?