Drake Savory

I hear this all of the time and it hurts my parliamentarian brain.  The purpose is to allow the Chair to move business items around as need be but it seems ... wrong.

1)  Do any of our parliamentarians NOT have a problem with an agenda being adopted with flexibility and can tell me why I shouldn't either?

2)  If the motion to adopt the agenda with flexibility is passed, then is Call for the Orders of the Day out of order?

3a)  If instead of "with flexibility" the agenda is simply adopted, can the Chair on their own call for unanimous consent to Suspend the Rules to change the order on the agenda?

3b)  And if there is an objection, can the Chair make that motion themselves?

On 7/21/2023 at 8:56 AM, Dan Honemann said:

For what it's worth, which isn't much, I would guess that the drafters of this unfortunate bylaw provision, assuming that they had a vague familiarity with the rules in RONR, were simply attempting to reflect in this provision essentially what is said in 25:7 concerning rules in the bylaws that can be suspended, including RONR's exception relating to rules requiring a ballot vote. 

That was my impression too.  Most members would not know what exactly a rule of order is so it looks like they tried to be more specific but they mucked it up even more.  Does business transactions relate to administration outside a meeting like if the bylaws ay the Treasure is to pay all bill the last week of the month?  And are there standing rules in the bylaws?  That would seem to conflict with 2:23(2). 

On 7/20/2023 at 12:14 PM, J. J. said:

Otherwise any meeting with less than 25% of the membership could adopt those motions.

Actually, under the OP's bylaw amendment wouldn't any motion to do X in a meeting with less than 25% attendance (assuming quorum meet) be passed even if everyone their voted no?

I just want to check to make sure I have this process down right.  As soon as a motion to Reconsider and Enter Into the Minutes is moved and seconded all consideration on RaEItM stops until the next day.  In other words, RaEItM is not debated or voted on but rather immediate moves a motion to Reconsider (or postpones the existing Reconsider on the floor if there is one) to be brought up the next day.  Is that correct?

Rule 9:26 is what bans revealing information to nonmembers

As for divulging information to members not present, Rule 47:36 gives them the right to review the minutes of executive sessions so the implication is that the information of what occurred can be shared with them.

What exactly do your rules say about calling special meetings and notice required?

On 6/20/2023 at 12:14 PM, sMargaret said:

That is indeed one of the things we're checking on, but the other potential administers of the oath would be a bit trickier to come by. 

And when and where?  Could you publicly take the oath of office before the meeting?

Why not just move to Postpone Indefinitely?  Why suspend the rules to do so?

On 6/12/2023 at 6:23 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

If the reason you can't obtain a quorum is that the quorum is higher than the total number of remaining members, then if you can get every remaining member to attend a meeting, the rules can be suspended in order to conduct business without a quorum and amend the bylaws.

Didn't we have a long thread in the Advanced section of the forum where almost everyone agreed you can't take action without a quorum other than actions to obtain a quorum which due to reality are going to fail.

Here it is: https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/39642-vacancies-blocking-quorum/

Although in that one the problem dealt with members not showing up.  Are you claiming that if the problem is lack of members (e.g. quorum is 30 members but there are only 23 members and there must be a quorum to accept new members) then the rules of quorum do not apply?  As Rob Elsman said in that thread

Quote

This is just another round of the discussion of the "black hole" that arises in an organization when the rules are written in such a way that circumstances of varying kinds make it impossible to obtain a quorum.  It is possible to conjure up any number of factual situations, some more complex than others, but the principle is the same:  for business to be validly transacted, a quorum must be present in the one room or area

I agree with Mr. Gerber and that it falls under the body's right to assign charges to a committee.  Assuming this survey does not fall under one of the charges given already to a committee, the motion would be something like, "I move to charge [pick one of the two committees] to send out a survey regarding tee times."

And to add, to properly kill a motion you use Postpone Indefinitely. 

Motion to Postpone to a Certain Time

On 6/15/2023 at 5:56 AM, Josh Martin said:

At the same meeting, a member who voted on the prevailing side (which in this case, is everyone) may move to Reconsider

Or nobody since no one voted against the motion.  Just like a person who abstains on a non 0-0 vote cannot move to reconsider.

Is that a quote from the minutes?  Unless you have a special rule, you do not include who seconded the motion unless the assembly directs the Secretary to do that.

On 4/19/2023 at 9:54 PM, Richard Brown said:

It is quite clear that it is to be a meeting of BOTH classes.

Yes but which class is the relevant one that needs a quorum?

On 4/18/2023 at 4:29 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Because a meeting of the members of both classes combined, in and as a single assembly, is not at all the same thing as a meeting of the members of only one of the classes.

Except as written one could interpret it was meant to refer to one of the classes.  I think we can all agree it is poorly written and quite ambiguous.

Basically a quorum of Class A has already voted and approved the amendment so if only one class is the "relevant class" for the second vote - why would it be Class A again?

On 4/16/2023 at 8:24 AM, Josh Martin said:

Do you perhaps mean to say that it is only a majority of class A members?

Nope.  For it to go to Class A and B it has already been passed by Class A so if a quorum is needed to ratify the bylaws amendment then a quorum of them should be requires as a quorum of Class A has already shown they approve of it.

On 4/12/2023 at 2:54 PM, Josh Martin said:

It seems plausible, however, that in this instance the phrase "the entire membership" is instead used to refer to the fact that all members, regardless of class, are included for purposes of the vote in question.

Except "class" is singular.  If I were a member and given what the OP has posted I would interpret it as a majority of class B only but as we always say, it is up to them to decide what it means.

What about if the assembly voted (2/3) to remove the day/time/place/etc. out of the bylaws completely.  Then they could pass a standing rule as to day/time/place/etc. by a majority vote.  This also has the advantage that day/time/place/etc. can be changed simply through Amend Something Previously Adopted which is much simpler in most cases than passing a(nother) bylaws amendment.

On 4/12/2023 at 1:50 PM, Josh Martin said:

or for the majority to prevent a small minority from preferring charges against them and suspending or expelling them (61, 63)." RONR (12th ed.) 45:5

Doesn't this imply that a member can vote against preferring charges or expelling themselves? 

On 4/11/2023 at 3:24 PM, Richard Brown said:

I agree, but would add that in a meeting of a small board of no more than about a dozen members using the "Small Board Rules" of RONR, seconds are not necessary.  But in ordinary assemblies, they are required.

And the Previous Question is out of order in committee. 16:4

On 4/6/2023 at 6:28 PM, Josh Martin said:

As to your question, the board member should not vote on this matter, but ultimately has the right to do so.

Why shouldn't they?  There is no problem with them voting on their appointment to an office and that could be considered "a direct personal ... interest not common to other members of the organization"

Under 50:26 committees (unless authorized) cannot make their own rules.  What is the extent of that ban?  Can a committee still make rules for the running of their meetings such as "The Vice-Chair shall act as recording secretary." or "The committee shall meet every 3rd Thursday at 7pm at the lodge-house."?

On 2/24/2023 at 9:33 AM, Richard Brown said:

If the VP/IPP can decline to serve as the IPP per the bylaws and your other answer, why can't the board select another PP to serve as the IPP if the VP/IPP declines to serve as the IPP?

I would assume because the immediate past president is just that.  No other past president can be the last one to have served as President before the current one.  

So if the current President were to die in office, there would be no immediate past president to serve on the Board.

How do your bylaws define "immediate past president"?