Atul Kapur

Thanks for the correction, Weldon. Edited my response to add this point

This sounds like this change was made without being well thought out, or, at least, not well explained. If your dues were on a June-May basis and you've now changed to a January-December year (and your dues cycle is required to align with your fiscal year), then you either have members paying twice for a 5-month period or a gap of 7 months, unless you adjusted your dues for the transition (e.g., put in a pro-rated dues for the "stub" period). Did you do any of his when the bylaws change was adopted?

Assuming Guest Bylaws and Guest Bill are the same person, Why didn't you tell us that the first time? This is a much different question and almost completely unrelated to the first. This now is a question about bylaws interpretation. It requires you to share the exact wording of the relevant portions of your bylaws, including the prior and current language regarding the fiscal year, the language about the deadline for dues payment, and the language that says because this is a difference from RONR. And please also share any other "wrinkles" when you do so.

By default, it is effective from the moment it is adopted. The meeting could adopt a proviso setting a later time when it becomes effective.

So there's two issues here. 1) as mentioned, majority means "more than half." So a majority of 4 or 5 is 3. But... 2) unless your rules specifically say otherwise, it's a majority of votes cast, rather than the number present. So if one if the four abstain, then a majority of the three votes cast is 2. Sometimes the language in an organization's bylaws sets things differently than the usual, which is why I asked earlier about the exact language in your bylaws.

Correct They are not the type of positions I was thinking of. If you had elected, at the odd annual convention, delegates to the state executive committee for example, then they could be ex-officio members of the county committee. No, it sounds like the people elected to government office are no longer ex officio members of the County Executive; they are no longer automatically members of the Executive by virtue of their government position.

Except that it is not clear that what they are already doing is what they approved doing with the original motion.

Assuming your officer terms are two years (as they are only elected in the odd-numbered years), one way to consider it is that you are actually electing an individual to a four-year term: two years as president and two as IPP. It's similar to the situation if you elect a president-elect. That person is actually being elected to a double-length term, serving the first half as prez-elect and the second half as president. I'm not certain that they did. Any positions that are elected at the odd-numbered annual conventions could still be on the board ex officio, couldnt they?

Does the constitution actually say that in those exact words?

What is being planned does not sound like a meeting. It sounds like an informal session where the president controls all aspects. That's not a meeting as RONR considers it - in aproper meeting the members control, within the rules; I'm not certain it qualifies as a "hearing" either. You may want to attend and still insist on a proper meeting.

This forum deals with RONR. It sounds like your questions are best taken to a lawyer with experience in the laws that apply to your association and the code to which you refer.

So who did approve the design, and did that person/body have the authority to do so? If they exceeded their authority, then the organization may wish to consider a motion to Ratify that decision. If that motion is adopted, you proceed. If the motion to Ratify is defeated and the design was not properly authorized, then this project may have to be stopped then and there (and there would be ramifications for the individuals who improperly approved the design). If, on the other hand, the design was properly approved, then the motion to reaffirm the decision is out or order. There could still be a motion to change things, but not a motion to reaffirm. Are those terms (cost and funding g method) in the original motion and are those terms are no longer being followed? If so, then Yes, you do need to Amend Something Previously Adopted or go back to following the motion that was originally adopted. Before you go further down any path, I suggest you stop and figure out how you got here: Who approved the design / signed the contract with that design? Were they authorized to do that or did they exceed their authority? How did costs exceed what was approved? Who approved that change? Were they authorized to do that or did they exceed their authority? How did the funding method that was approved get changed? Who approved that change? Were they authorized to do that or did they exceed their authority? These are likely not questions that we can help you answer, but the answers should help you figure our the correct course of action.

If I understand correctly, the proposed motion would change elements of the project from what was originally adopted (e.g. changing the amounts of money). This is clearly a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted (ASPA). If this motion is adopted, then you follow the new plan. However, if this motion is defeated, then the original motion is unchanged and is still in effect; you would then need a motion to Rescind the original motion (and, as part of the motion to rescind you should also specify what to do with the money already raised). To say it in other words, your options with the motion to ASPA are to vote Yes to amend the original motion or vote No to leave it alone - you cannot, in one motion, set it up so that a Yes vote would amend it and a No vote would rescind it.

I will agree with Mr. Martin and Mr. Elsman, and go further. If, as you say, the defeat of the proposed motion would mean that then I do not see how the proposed motion can be anything other than a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted. You obviously are not following the path laid out in the original motion if you cannot keep working without this new proposed motion, which would have the effect of aligning the original motion with the direction you're actually going in. The other responders may be able to be as definitive if you share the original and proposed motions (removing any details that would identify your group, of course).

Under RONR, at a membership meeting, all members (other than than the chair) participate as members. Officers have no more rights than other members at a membership meeting, but they don't have any fewer rights, either. Your point of order should have been to object to the fact that the member was reading from a paper. Once you objected to the individual reading the letter from the official, then the Moderator should have followed RONR (12th ed.) 33:20 ("Request to read papers") and asked the assembly to decide if the member could read the letter. Since the Moderator did not, you could have raised an Appeal from the ruling of the chair. See §24. That should not happen and, if it does, should be stopped. If your remarks did not meet the rules of decorum, the he should call you to order. While you have the floor, others should be listening to you, not "returning comments of their own."