Atul Kapur

I was not talking about a hypothetical member - the OP asked about the chair. It is the duty of the chair to protect and balance the rights of the minority along with the rights of the majority (and others). As the chair, I would rule that this was not dilatory

That assumes that the Council follows RONR regarding committees. We've seen enough to put that assumption in doubt.

A motion to Discharge a Committee can be adopted by a) a 2/3 vote, or b) a majority vote if notice has been given, or c) a vote of the majority of the entire membership. This third option is more common in smaller bodies, such as a Council. For example, if your Council has 9 members, then any vote with 5 or more affirmative votes would adopt a motion to Discharge a Committee, whether notice was given or not.

You didn't finish the sentence. Someone can be in favour of a question, yet opposed to its adoption by unanimous consent. It's not necessarily about the what (adoption) but rather the how (process). They may feel that some debate is warranted. They may know that there are some who disagree with the motion but are going to acquiesce to its adoption and they may wish that those people have a chance to speak.

It doesn't seem to me that two motions are needed. Depending on the wording of the March motion, a motion to rescind may not be needed at all (you don't rescind something you're not doing). This may simply be a motion renewing something.

Has he, though? The chair, like any member, could simply object to doing it by unanimous consent.

Well, if every other person other than the mover objects, then the Chair should seek a second. Otherwise, I think it's entirely reasonable to assume that at least one of those who did not object wants the motion adopted and would, presumably, also want it considered.

I agree with Mr. Mervosh's reply to you back then (when he still called himself George instead of Bob) that it refers to the assembly. The sentence refers to the events during the meeting of the assembly. The committee is not meeting at that time, so the unanimous consent must be that of the assembly's.

The presiding officer usually only casts their vote when it would make a difference in the outcome. In this case, it would. If it is a smaller board (smaller than about 12), then the presiding officer does not have this restriction and is free to vote.

It's not at all clear to me that the statute you quote gives the board the authority to approve minutes of annual meetings. There is not enough included to tell if it applies to membership meetings or just to board meetings. And that is a question for a lawyer. I agree with Mr. Brown's answer that it is a good idea to have the Board or a committee approve the annual meeting minutes; I also agree that you can only do that if it is in the bylaws or a motion adopted at the annual meeting.

I don't read that as including the power to change the bylaws. In other words, I do not think that "any rules and regulations of the corporation" includes the bylaws. I would say rules and regulations are below bylaws. But, my opinion is not worth the paper it's not written on. In the case of any ambiguity, it's up to your corporation to interpret its own bylaws.

Well, the minutes of an association are to be made available to members of that association. Putting them on social media opens them up to a much larger audience. The association should adopt a motion to put them on social media if that's what they wish to do. But if they wish to do so, RONR does not prevent that.

RONR does not have the answer to your question. You will need to look at your bylaws to see what authority the board has regarding levies and, perhaps, the wording of the original referendum question. Personally, I would be surprised if the board had authority to do this itself. After all, if it had that authority why would it need to have held the referendum in the first place?

We ask that you post new questions as a new thread, rather than adding to others. Please do so, and please do it under General rather than Advanced.

Hi Guest Bern. We ask that you post a new question in a new thread, rather than adding to a different thread, no matter how similar the topics seem to be.

Unless any open meeting or "sunshine" laws apply, this violates no rules.

Yes.

Someone's been watching waay too many medical shows on TV if that's how you think an emergency department works. ☺

For the executive board to determine what the dues should be, they should have voted on and adopted a motion. The board can only make decisions by adopting motions. Following that, the membership would vote on a motion to approve the dues as set by the executive board. Giving notice of this is probably a good idea.

Yeah, that'll save us Canadians from having to explain the definition of the word. 😐

Depending on the mood of the membership, you might want to try this: If a motion was read and passed twice, at the penultimate and the last board meeting before the terms ended, then at the first board meeting with the new membership you could use the "waive" provision and adopt the motion. It avoids having the first two board meetings of each term being unable to do anything and preserves the three reading principle in spirit (assuming that this is important to the group). A variant can be applied if the first reading is at the last board meeting before the terms end.

Amendments to the proposed changes to the bylaws are allowed as long as they are within the scope of notice. Assuming these changes proposed by the one member for within that scope, it should be fine.

Usually, I consider the three readings process as an elaborate form of notice. The OP says that the motion is read and passed three times, so I agree with Dr. Stackpole on the nearest equivalent in RONR.

Given the bylaws language you quote, my answer is unchanged. This is not a separate AGM, rather a continuation of the same AGM. Some might argue that the notice period is long enough that you could re-open the call for proposals.

They could possibly keep both positions unless they conflict or the bylaws prohibit that situation. That person only has one vote, no matter how many positions they hold.