Atul Kapur

If the minutes are recording the discussion, they should record the discussion that actually happened. That is, the information that was provided at the meeting. It would be incorrect to try to amend the minutes to change the information. However, at this meeying if you wish to change the motion that was adopted at the last meeting - based on this updated information that you are hearing today - then Mr. Geiger's answer regarding the motion Amend/Rescind Something Previously Adopted can be applied to the motion from the last meeting.

Unfortunately, there may be a complication to using the standard provision in RONR which is quoted above. WONCA's Bylaws Article 24 on Amendments state that "Such amendment or amendments shall be operative from the conclusion of that Council Meeting." It doesn't look like the Region's bylaws are an amendment to WONCA's bylaws themselves but are the region's bylaws new or an amendment to ones that already exist? If the latter, do your existing regional bylaws have the same provision? [I was looking up who WONCA is and got carried away]

I suggest you call a special meeting. If you have a quorum, appoint the committee. If not, then those who are there have an informal disussion and then you follow Mr. Brown's advice. And start the process of amending your bylaws.

I just caution about using that terminology. Saying that an amendment makes it a different question also implies that members who spoke twice to the main motion before the amendment should be allowed two other opportunities to debate the now-amended main motion. Which is not correct, as I recall.

I've always understood that the purpose is to avoid wasting the assembly's time on a motion even the mover doesn't support.

I think the main differential is whether there are terms. As an example, the assembly of the Bedrock Lodge (No. 26) of the Loyal Order of Water Buffaloes is a continuous assembly. Some new members may come and some others may go, but the assembly is the assembly. The Executive Board of the Chapter is made up of members with terms so one board is different than the next. Similarly, the National Convention of the LOWB is a different organization each time, with delegates appointed for each convention.

Because that was the whole point of the OP's question. Without the assumption that this is one long session, there is no question: Even the exact same question could be moved at the next meeting if it's a separate session. The assumption has been challenged earlier in this thread but, given that it's a County Board, the assumption is not unreasonable.

"In a convention or session of more than one day, a reconsideration can be moved only on the same day the original vote was taken or on the next succeeding day within the session on which a business meeting is held." (p. 316, ll.26-30 , emphasis added). So if this is the first meeting since the one where the motion was defeated, then a motion to Reconsider would still be in order (assuming RONR applies and is not superseded). FWIW, I don't think Reconsider is necessary because this is, in my mind, a different question.

Just to clarify: the future board is a different board because the terms of some or all of the members have ended. Even if every member of the present board is re-elected to the future board in the same roles, the present board still could not remove a member from the future board.

Not so mysterious. The future board is a different board than the present board. Each board can remove a member from itself, but not from the other.

What you are sending out by email are draft minutes, and I see nothing wrong with that. Agreeing with my colleagues, the actual approval should happen at a meeting. I am not a fan of only keeping electronic records. And this leads to a suggestion that may satisfy your stickler. The secretary brings one hard copy to the meeting which any member is free to review at the time the minutes are approved. Corrections, if any, are made on that hard copy, and once approved the hard copy is signed as the official minutes of the previous meeting. This hard copy then gets put into the official records of the association. The electronic record can be kept as a backup. And this way, only one printed copy exists, thus saving paper and ink from having multiple copies circulating.

Agreeing with Mr. Martin that a resignation should be accepted at the first opportunity unless there is a specific wish to discipline the member or, for example, the member is in arrears on dues and you want them paid up before you accept the resignation. Why don't the 2 want to accept the resignation? Do they think the person will willingly and completely fulfill the duties of the position if they're forced to stay on?

"Tabling for 30 days" suggest that what you're really intending to do is Postpone for 30 days. However, both motions have a limitation that you cannot postpone / table beyond the next meeting. It sounds like you will have another meeting in less than 30 days; in that case, it would need to come up at that next meeting. It could be further postponed at that time.

I'm going to resist laughing at that one

Actually from more than half the total number of people on the board. If you have an 8 or 9 member board, this means 5 Yes votes, no matter how many are present and voting. If all show up and vote, then 2/3 vote requires 6 Yes. As to rescind vs amend, it sounds like amend is the more efficient way to achieve what you want.

It wasn't clear to me that you dealt with this as a revision (the words "the first amendment proposal" made me think that you were presenting a handful of amendments). Now that I understand that it was a revision that was being considered seriatim, I agree that you proceeded correctly. However, it is unfortunate that the assembly was not able to consider and express their opinion to the bylaws committee on the other provisions before the entire provision was re-committed. In order to prevent a recurrence, can I suggest two ideas? One, hold a bylaws hearing where members can discuss, clarify, and comment and and the bylaws committee can hear the comments. Two, during consideration seriatim, the chair could remind the membership that after each section or paragraph is considered individually, the entire revision is open for consideration and the motion to Commit could be moved at that time.

A couple of points. First, I don't think you did anything wrong. Many people who "have been doing this for years" are actually not doing it correctly and are taken aback when the actual rules are presented to them, as it sounds like you did. I'm not surprised the attorney also didn't back you up because most of them didn't actually get trained in parliamentary procedure (No offence intended to attorneys in the forum), Second (No pun intended) it may be clearer if we go back to the purpose of the concept of seconding. It's to indicate that more than one person wants to discuss / debate the motion. So if another person starts debating it, that fulfills the condition - two people (the mover and this other person who's debating) both want to debate it. So at that point, a formal second is unnecessary. Note that the seconder doesn't need to support the motion. They just want it debated and dealt with in some way. They may even want it defeated, so that the assembly is on record as being against the idea. This may be the source of the confusion and consternation amongst some of your group: they may think that the requirement for a seconder is to indicate that more than one person supports the motion, which is incorrect. Third, I suggest that you graduate from the Dummies book and get a copy of Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief which is a simple evening's reading, is also fairly straightforward, is cheaper than the Dummies book, and has all the references to The Big Book, because it's written by the same authorship group.

I think that the best place to find the answer is in your bylaws, any Special Rules you've adopted, or in the motion that created/appointed the committee. I dont have my RONR in front of me, but I cannot recall anything in RONR that would answer your specific question. Stay tuned, others may.

The hard rule under RONR is that electing by plurality instead of a majority requires you to have already adopted a special rule to do so. And if it's for the election of officers, then it has to be in your bylaws.

It covered two related topics: whether one could adopt two motions that would result in a deficit and, the topic I believe Guest Zev was referring to, whether one could adopt two motions that would result in an expenditure beyond what was budgeted for that category.

Then what's the point of creating and adopting a budget at all? A budget is "a plan for the coordination of resources and expenditures" -- Merriam-Webster. Approval of the budget is a main motion with continuing force and effect (the plan is for the association's fiscal year). Altering the plan in the budget (eg: expenditures beyond what was approved in the budget) requires an amendment. So if it needs to be amended then that requires a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted. RONR alludes to this when it says "if it is desired that the assembly adopt an annual budget but that the board be empowered to alter it to deal with contingencies that may develop, the bylaws (or the budget resolution) must specifically confer this power on the board" (p.577, ll. 29-33). While this is written as an example of the powers of the board vs the assembly, the clear implication is that dealing with contingencies requires alteration of the budget, aka amendment. FWIW, Parliamentary Law Question 15 supports this approach. Organizations are free to decide to do things this way. However, they would need to adopt a bylaw (or perhaps a special rule of order) to do it this way because it's not supported by RONR. In fact, the Sample Bylaws have a specific provision to do just that, "The Finance Committee may from time to time submit amendments to the budget for the current fiscal year, which may be adopted by a majority vote" (p. 587, ll. 14-16). If amending budgets by a majority vote was the standard approach then there would be no need to specify it in the Sample Bylaws. At least, that's my $0.02 (which I budgeted when I contributed to the original thread).

I suspect the authority to meet and do some types of business will not be found in RONR but in the rules for your municipality's committees. The four motions in your quote from RONR are basically the only business that can be validly transacted. "In the absence of a quorum, any business transacted (except for the procedural actions noted in the next paragraph) is null and void." RONR 11th ed., p. 347 lines 22-24. However, I have seen municipal and legislative rules that allow committees to do things like conduct hearings (aka public comment) even without a quorum. These rules would supersede the provisions of RONR.

Interpretation of your bylaws is something your organization will have to decide.

Table II (Tinted Page 24, Motion #69 "Ratify, or Confirm" states that the Vote Required for Adoption is "Majority, except as explained on pages 103-4". This refers to SDC 7 of The Main Motion which states the exceptions to the majority vote requirement (including where the bylaws "prescribe a requirement of more than a majority vote {such as a two-thirds vote, or previous notice [pp. 121-24], or both}"). This makes it clear (to me, at least) that the motion to Ratify requires the same vote as the original motion which it is ratifying.

Doesn' matter how good your rationale is, you cannot suspend your bylaws rule on quorum. Quorum is the minimum, so it doesn't matter whether you're below it by one person or ten. The motion to suspend the rules was and remains null and void. Your board is being prudent by not acting on the decisions made at the meeting since they are also null and void.