Drake Savory

I hear that a lot too. It is still wrong.

Without more information, I would say this violates the entire principle of a deliberative body.

Could the argument be made that preparing the draft minutes in a timely manner actually is in connection with the business of the next meeting considering that is where the draft minutes will be read and approved/amended?

That makes sense. Thank you. Gotta love a ton of simulposts. Next question: would a motion specifying using SBR or the full rules (custom states we use X, I want to use the other one) for that specific meeting require a majority vote or a two-thirds vote? No rule is being suspended and no special rule superceding a rule in RONR is being moved.

Then if the choice is truly optional and the board has not made a decision, what rules are used to start a meeting?

But absent a Board's directive, who decides how to run the meeting ... at least until the Board has an opportunity to decide what rules to use? In other words, I'm about to Chair a small-board meeting and the Board has not given a decision on which rules to use. What rules are the default if SBR are not mandatory? Why wouldn't it be the ones that I qua Chair choose to facilitate the meeting unless directed otherwise by the Board. This is not an idle question for me (as you can tell). I am a member of a small board (that has no clue SBR's even exist) and when I made a motion and a second was requested, I made a Point of Order that under small board rules, a second was not required. I was told by the Chair that he chose to operate under the formal rules and my point was not well taken. Looking it up, I read 1:24 as as y'all can tell I read that as yes SBR are optional. The question is now, up until that time when the body could have said we use SBR, why was it improper for the Chair to choose which optional rules to run the meeting by?

Because the body can decide, either through a special rule of order that they do/do not use small board rules or direct the Chair to use small board rules or not. I'm saying that at the outset of the meeting the Chair would pick. For example in a small board, and for the hypothetical let's assume it is optional to use SBR, an member moves to use SBR. If the choice of rules is truly optional, would a second be required for that motion? Who decides that? Wouldn't it be the Chair, given that the body can overrule their decision upon an Appeal?

Apparently J.J. has been at the meetings of organizations I belong to because that is the rule there. Apparently J.J has been at many HOA-from-Hell meetings too.

1:24 "certain modifications permitting greater and informality are commonly allowed" implies they are not required then references 49:21. I agree that 49:21 strongly implies that those are the rules for small boards but it does not explicitly state that the rules are mandatory. Because if The Book(tm) gives a choice as how to run a meeting then naturally the Chair would decide unless small-board rules or no-small-board rules are written into the board's documents. For me, the question is: if the Board wants to change the Chair's way of running the board meeting, would it be a majority vote or a two-thirds vote?

Isn't it the Chair's decision to use small board rules or not? That it is not mandatory even if a small board?

I don't think that is an issue of this zoom rule per se as it is a Chair that doesn't recognize a member that he should.

If a member has a pecuniary (financial) interest in the motion, they should refrain from voting. However that is a recommendation; they cannot be prevented from voting. 45:4. Simply being friends is not a conflict of interest.

They are open to vote yes, vote no or abstain. The only restriction is the maker of the motion (does not apply to the seconder) may not debate against their motion.

Maybe I'm missing some context here, but isn't the rule in question just a virtual form of the in-person rule that you must be recognized by the Chair to speak? And the Chair even has a method whereby a person can interrupt the speaker. In fact, if there was an issue with people speaking over each other and not seeking recognition despite repeated warnings, I would contend that the Chair had a duty to implement a rule like this to enforce order. Even if they can speak when recognized AND can speak when it interrupts a speaker? How would that be different than an in-person meeting. 9:31 requires conditions of opportunity, echoed in 9:34 that says there needs to be opportunity for simultaneous aural discussion which we have here if people raise there hands or do "ta-dah!". It does not require everyone to talk whenever they want like it's open-mike night.

What if the bylaws read something like "When there is a vacancy in an office, the nomination committee shall submit a nomination for the office to the Board for their approval." That seems to me that the motion then would be, "Shall Anna Abattior be appointed to fill the vacancy of 5th Vice-President?" which would be a yes/no vote. If not, how would you rewrite it so the intention that the Board can vote down a nominated appointee?

I just used that in my example. Maybe it was a committee. The point is that if a single person is nominated to fill a vacancy, the Board holding a yes/no vote to approve the appointment is not all that unusual.

That's why I said "specific" not "interpret the rule the way you (the member, not you) want to". Ask them to point the the words "The Board votes on the amendment" because if the words aren't there then it's not a rule. Then as Chair rule accordingly and see if they use the nuclear option i.e. appeal and overrule you.

The way the OP described it, it seems like this was to fill a vacancy in the office of Vice-President. If so, the vote is not so odd. Someone like the President submits a name to the Board for approval. If the Board doesn't approve the appointment, the President keeps submitting names until they do.

Have them point to the rule that specifically states the Board votes on the amendment. As long as there was still quorum, why not say, "Bye Felicia." and keep going? What exactly is your quorum threshold? Pls quote it and what are your current number of members (see below)? Under RONR, this resignation needs to be approved. Do your rules state that a member can resign unilaterally? My personal thoughts on this. One, it could be so that the Board gives its recommendation to the membership, however they do not have the power to block it. I'm in an organization where the Board used to do everything. Once the membership got its power back, old habits die hard, so while the Board recognizes they do not have the authority to make decisions out of their power they still want to recommend to the members what decision they should make. Two, our bylaws were so messed up because after decades of amendments there were major inconsistencies. Therefore after the bylaws were completely rewritten, all amendments now go through our bylaws committee that report out if the suggested amendment needs to be amended to avoid inconsistencies or if it violates fundamental parliamentary rights. They offer no editorials or recommendations on the amendment. They are just a second set of eyes to make sure it is a proper amendment before sending it to the members. Maybe that is the purpose of having a Board member look at it or maybe it is a simple as they can help with the writing if there are issues about it.

Make it similar to a parliamentarian 1) Serves at the pleasure of the President. If the President does not want the IPP there then he has no right to be there. 2) Consultant only. No vote, right to make motions or debate. Addresses the assembly only by leave of the President.

I've put my finger on what was bothering me about the whole thing 1) The secondary amendment completely eliminated the primary amendment 2) Was directly contrary to the primary amendment in terms of having a meeting or not. Once I figured that out, I see where thinking of the secondary as a substitute amendment, now it makes a whole lot more sense.

"I move to adopt the proposed calendar."

The original motion was to adopt the calendar of meetings for 2024-2025. Note that the list of meeting did not indicate in-person or virtual but the presumption is that all meetings are in person unless specified. The primary amendment was to eliminate one of the meetings on the calendar. by amending the calendar. "I move to eliminate the June 1st meeting." The secondary amendment intended to reinstate the meeting (which has not been eliminated yet) by striking the entire primary amendment and substituting to make June 1st a virtual meeting. But it does not allow an amendment that if passed would reject the main motion. Example given in 12:22(2)

I can state without doubt that had we had an IPP position on our Board, one election would have cause 6 years of turmoil. I cannot think of any positives had we had that position. One thing that did help what to have our 2 state delegates on the Board but that is a whole other thing.

Isn't there a general rule that bylaws must be interpreted in a way that separate sections do not conflict if possible? If so, given the nebulous definition of "critical" and the specificity of the amendment clause, is there anyway to NOT interpret it as a 2/3 in-person vote?