Atul Kapur

I'm not sure what further advice you are looking for. You were already told and, regarding discipline If you think there is grounds to invoke the discipline section of your bylaws against members of your board, do it. I don't see that you can do so against a collective group of members (such as the board) but I haven't reviewed them in detail. Otherwise, your next opportunity for recourse is at the next membership meeting, either regular, annual, or special (if you have provisions to call one and what you plan to do is included in the call of the meeting). There is no RONR police that will force your board to do what you say they are required to do. You may wish to see if the parent body has authority to force the board to do that.

Whoever has the standing rule will have to interpret it. If it helps, the limit of two speeches per question per day in RONR considers that the question is the pending motion and the question is the same whether the motion has been amended or not. So if a person has spoken twice to a motion, the person does not get two more opportunities to speak to the motion after it has been amended. Perhaps that principle will be of help to those interpreting the standing rule.

It sounds like your bylaws explain the particular relationship between your council and your congregation, so the answer is likely to be found there. RONR generally has the assembly has boards and committees as reporting to and subordinate to the association.

You create your own rules of order to deal with that situation. And probably look for a different technology.

We're repeating ourselves. The difference is whether the interpretation is applied to one particular set of facts during a point of order or no set of facts during consideration of a motion on interpretation. It's why I've said what I did earlier and why I agree that such a motion is dilatory. During the next point of order, the decision to be made is whether the set of facts now is similar enough to the set of facts during the precedent ruling that the precedent is applicable. The theoretical motion is not nearly as helpful to the presiding officer or the assembly, the arguments are going to be the same whether it was considered or not. The level of ambition of the bylaws is not germane to this discussion. 😀

That's not necessarily the case. As I said way back on Page 1 of this thread, the theoretical interpetation may not apply to the facts surrounding the point of order. We won't know until that situation occurs and the point of order is made. Which is why this theoretical discussion is best conducted in a philosophy webinar and not in a deliberative assembly.

I'm not spending a night in the box, whether I should or not. It sounds like What we've got here ... is

Oral reports? "Anyone who gives an oral report spends a night in the box." RONR (12th ed.) 51:53 "Even if a report contains only an account of work done or a statement of fact or opinion for the assembly’s information, it should be in writing."

Well, RONR (12th ed.) 51:53 says that reports containing only information ("an account of work done or a statement of fact or opinion for the assembly’s information") should be in writing and are filed. 47:35 says that "When written reports are received from boards or committees, the secretary records on them the date they were received and what further action was taken on them, and preserves them among his records. It is not necessary for an assembly to vote that a board or committee report be 'placed on file,' as that is done without a vote." I agree that this record is different from the minutes but it is part of the official record of the organization.

This is bad chairing. It has nothing to do with the format of the meeting. No motion has been passed. Neither. The $50,000 motion was defeated. That is all that you have done. You did not adopt either the $85,000 nor the $93,500 motions. That is why I say the problem was not Zoom. It's the chair's duty to ensure everyone is clear on the motion that is being considered and what, exactly is being voted on.

"Can be applied to any rule of the assembly except bylaws (or rules contained in a constitution or corporate charter)." RONR (12th ed.) 25:2(2) [but see below] There are several types of rules that cannot be suspended. They are listed in 25:7-13 The first reference has a footnote 25:2n5 which says that rules in bylaws that are in the nature of a rule of order may be suspended, and that is defined in 2:14, "Such rules relate to the orderly transaction of business in meetings and to the duties of officers in that connection." So an example would be to suspend the rules to allow members to speak three times on a particular question. The difference between suspending the rules and amending them is that the suspension only lasts as long as necessary to achieve the purpose of the suspension.

Shouldn't be much of an argument. Just quote RONR (12th ed.) 35:1, ". . . the motions to Rescind and to Amend Something Previously Adopted—which are two forms of one incidental main motion . . ." But why are you arguing this point? What difference does it make in your situation? That's not what RONR (12th ed.) 35:9 says when giving the Form and Example for this motion, "In a great many instances, the motion or resolution originally adopted is not referred to, and only the bylaw, rule, or policy to be rescinded or amended is mentioned. For example: MEMBER A (obtaining the floor): In accordance with the notice given in the call of this meeting, I move to amend Article V, Section 3 of the bylaws by striking out subparagraph (c) thereof. (Second.)"

A provision requiring that ballot vote would be better to be in the bylaws. However, other Provisions regarding voting and nominations could be in the bylaws but do not need to be. The bylaws could reference a lower-level document that could be amended more easily. The important point is that it is better to decide how to handle questions and details around voting and nominations ahead of time and write them down so that you are not making judgments on the spot in the middle of an election.

I think that you are reading more into this passage than is there. Giving "notice of each meeting" does not say that they have to give separate notice of each meeting. If the motion adopted in January sets the date, hour, and place for every meeting for the rest of the year, and it is sent to every member, this would be perfectly adequate notice. If it is sent a reasonable number of days in advance of the February meeting, then it has definitely been sent a reasonable number of days in advance of the October one.

Richard, you're a lawyer. What would a judge say if you came before them and said, "I have no case where the interpretation of this law has come into question, but I am asking you to rule on the law"? Wouldn't they send you away and tell you to come back if and when that law had a bearing on a particular case? (To "stay in my lane" it's the same thing I would tell someone who has no symptoms but wants me to scan their belly to see if they have appendicitis. I would tell them to come back if and when they had belly pain. But I'm using the legal analogy here because no one has ever talked about "parliamentary medicine" 😉) Similarly here, if there is no one claiming that a rule has been broken under one interpretation of the bylaws, why waste the assembly's time in making an interpretation? On the other hand, if you are saying you want to reduce the chances of someone making a point of order, start the process of amending the bylaw.

Be careful of the service you hire. Don't just accept at face value their claims to be able to properly handle the votes and process the ballots according to your rules.

If I were the presiding officer, I would state that the motion is not in order as a motion but would treat it as a point of order. As the presiding officer in this situation, I would seriously consider not making a ruling but rather putting the question to the assembly. This may seem like a fine distinction (between letting the member make a motion and having the assembly vote on the point of order), but the difference as I see it is that the method I recommend is actually applying the interpretation to a particular situation, rather than just having a theoretical interpretation.

It seems like it would be appropriate to raise this issue as a point of order. Whether it will be ruled as well taken or not well taken is for the presiding officer to decide. Inherent in that ruling will be the presiding officer's interpretation of the bylaws. If two people disagree with the ruling (whether because of the interpretation or any other reason) then they can move and second a motion to appeal from the decision of the chair. During the debate on the appeal (and even, concisely, when making the point of order) members could refer to the Principles of Interpretation in order to support their argument.

RONR goes further than saying acclamation is still allowed. (12th ed.) 46:40 makes it clear that acclamation is the way uncontested seats are filled if ballots are not required.

RONR (12th ed.) 41:12 says that "they are not read at the meeting unless a member requests it." I think there is a difference between an objection to not reading the minutes and a request to read the minutes. I'd prefer to keep the onus on the member to make the request instead of having the chair invite one.

An example would be a motion to demolish the garage. Once the garage has actually been demolished, it is impossible to undo. Until it has actually been demolished, the motion can be rescinded. The last 10 years under the strategic plan cannot be undone. However, the future is covered by the rest of that point: "The unexecuted part of an order, however, can be rescinded or amended." The strategic plan has not yet been executed going forward. So it can be rescinded and will no longer have effect. You may prefer to amend the strategic plan, instead.

It looks like we both need to use the smiling-face emoji to label our jokes 😁 As far as I can tell, it's not a standard spelling. It's not even listed in the Oxford Dictionary of Canadian English. Online dictionaries all refer to it as non-standard or variant. Interestingly, the website wordnik.com (😊) gives several examples of it, from the UK, United States, and Australia. So there's hope that it may be recognized at some point in time.

Correct. So the presiding officer, instead of asking the secretary to read the minutes, says, "The minutes were distributed along with the agenda. Are there any corrections to the minutes?" If there are no corrections, the presiding officer declares they are approved. Don't even need a motion.

Under RONR, all members of a body have the right to attend a meeting of the body. The other members of the board are free to have a phone call and exclude you but that discussion was not a proper meeting where they could make decisions as the board. RONR does more than feel that way. It says so explicitly (12th ed.) 45:3-4 RONR says, "No member should vote on a question in which he has a direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members of the organization." 45:4 The question you need to answer is whether this is a "direct personal interest." Just to complicate things, 45:5 says this doesn't mean that you cannot vote for yourself for a position to which members generally are eligible. You will have to decide whether that would also apply to a vote for your son.

i.e., a Canadian