Angie N

Ok thank you! I thought the percentage had to also be greater than 50%. 

Hello,

Help! In zoom polling, if 50% says yes and 49% says no. Does this motion pass? 

On 2/19/2021 at 5:02 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Absolutely not.

Thank you! 

Thank you for your help and responses! 

15 minutes ago, Bruce Lages said:

In your situation was the motion placed before the assembly by the chair?

Yes it was placed before the assembly and member B the stated he wanted to amend the motion. 

Hello,

Can someone please help with amending a motion? Does a member have to be granted permission? An example: If member A makes a motion to donate $200 to org A and Member B wants to amend to donate the $200 to org B. I understand to amend he would need to "strike out" org A and "insert" org B.  The presiding officer said she needed permission from member A before he can amend. Is that correct? 

3 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

How many days is it until the meeting?

Next Saturday

Thank you everyone for responding! If I may try to add some clarity. Amendment#1 was withdrawn in a previous meeting. Amendment#2 gave 30 day notice per bylaws and was not brought before the membership to vote yet. That will be in a couple weeks.  However the committee chair for amendment#2 stated in their report they want to withdraw their amendment which is #2 and have #1 reconsidered. 

2 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

Actually, the rule (33:17) is that "a previous notice of a proposed motion requiring such notice … cannot be withdrawn after it is too late for renewal, unless unanimous consent is given."

Would a motion than be needed to reconsider the amendment that was withdrawn? 

8 hours ago, J. J. said:

If notice was given for amendment #1, it is till "good."  Any member may move #1 (18:33).

It notice was given for #2, the same situation apples

I also didn't see 18:33 in RONR 12th ed. Was that a reference you were giving? 

8 hours ago, J. J. said:

If notice was given for amendment #1, it is till "good."  Any member may move #1 (18:33).

It notice was given for #2, the same situation apples

Amendment#1 was already withdrawn. Would notice have to be given again for #1? 

Hello,

I have a situation where a member submitted an amendment (#1) and then withdrew it. Another submitted an amendment (#2) and now wants to with withdraw and have #1 considered.

I have a few questions:

What is the correct way to bring this before the members? Our bylaws say we need 30 days notice. Would notice have to be given again for #1? Does the member for amendment#1 have to do anything? Is it in order for the member for amendment #2 to submit another person's amendment? 

Please help.

Thank you! 

3 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

Assuming there are no rules on this matter that would need to be amended, I suppose the desired motion would be something along the lines of "That the fundraising committee be authorized to implement fundraising events if there is no cost to the membership."

Thank you!  This sounds much clearer than the original motion.

This is a recommendation from the fundraising committee. I believe the desired outcome is that they don't want to bring any recommendations before the membership that does not cost the membership. Essentially they want the authority to have the events, etc without having to bring it before the membership to vote on when it doesn't cost the membership. 

10 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Well, think again.  🙂

I'm seeking to educate myself. The snarky comment is unnecessary and not welcomed. 

6 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

To help us address your question about a motion to eliminate something, please tell us what it is you have in mind or give us an example of what you mean by a motion to eliminate something. Such motions can quite definitely be appropriate and in order, but we need a little more information to give you a good answer.

The motion to eliminate voting of the membership on fundraising activities that do not require membership funding. 

6 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

I think I will need more context to provide a meaningful answer.

Not exactly. RONR notes that it is preferable to avoid a motion containing a negative statement for the sake of clarity, but it does not go so far as to say that motions have to be in the affirmative. In the case of a motion "not to do something" in particular, RONR notes that this should not be done if the same result can be accomplished by offering no motion at all.

"A motion whose only effect is to propose that the assembly refrain from doing something should not be offered if the same result can be accomplished by offering no motion at all. It is incorrect, for example, to move “that no response be made” to a request for a contribution to a fund, or “that our delegates be given no instructions,” unless some purpose would be served by adoption of such a motion. This could be the case, for example, if the membership of an organization wishes to make certain that a subordinate body, such as its executive board, will not take such action at a later date, or if the motion expresses an opinion or reason as to why no action should be taken.

It is preferable to avoid a motion containing a negative statement even in cases where the effect of the motion is to propose that something be done, since members may become confused as to the effect of voting for or against such a motion. Rather than moving, for example, that the association go on record as “not in favor of the proposed public bond issue,” it should be moved that the association “oppose” or “declare its opposition to” the bond issue." RONR (12th ed.) 10:11-12

Thank you so much! This explanation is very helpful. 

Can someone please explain the difference between a motion to eliminate something vs a motion not to do something? 

I thought motions had to be in the affirmative. 

4 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

That's not really the problem.  The board had no right to see the report if the committee reports to the membership.

The problem is that the president allegedly did see the report, or at least claims to have seen it.  The committee does not report to the president, so I don't understand the relationship between the president and the committee. 

The budget committee was involved because the president believed the proposal should be further researched by them. I don't know of any other relationship. 

On 9/7/2020 at 2:50 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Well, they would not need explicit authority to refer to committees which report to them, but that does not give the president unilateral power to do so.  It's not clear what sort of committee this is, or to whom it reports.  If it reports to the membership, the board appears to be overstepping. 

The problem here seems to have been created by getting the board involved in the first place.

It's a standing committee that reports to the membership.

The proposal was sent to the board for potential feedback. 

On 9/7/2020 at 2:46 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

So the president, but not the board, received the report of the committee?  And the president merely paraphrased the report?  This is pretty sloppy.  It sounds like the president is presuming powers which she does not possess, in more than one instance.

That is correct! The board did not see the report. 

13 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

 

 

 

The facts Mr. Honemann has elicited may change my advice. I don't presume to speak for him (or presume that I am clear on the point he is making) but, if the board has the authority to refer items to this committee or to give instructions to it, then it sounds like they did that when the president said she would follow up to have the committee add information to their report.

Our bylaws does not give authority to the board refer to committees

10 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

 

First, we haven't been told that this was a standing committee (a reasonable assumption, but not yet verified).

Second, I don't read RONR (12th ed.) 50:8 to say that all standing committee's have that authority. If a standing committee is to have that authority, then it must be named in the bylaws or a special rule of order, but I don't see that the reverse is necessarily true. In fact, we are told in 50:9 that if a standing committee does not have that authority, then it can be created by a standing rule.

Yes it was referred to a standing committee. 

Unfortunately no. 

9 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I still think it would be helpful to know exactly what happened at the Board meeting when, apparently, this committee initially submitted its report.

The President said she received the report of the committee and they unanimously voted against the proposal. There were a couple questions as to why. The president said she will follow up with the committee to include in their report and present to the general membership. That's exactly what happened