Tomm

Without a vote and/or documented special rule then how do you maintain any consistency in the use of those rules regarding debate or whether or not the chair votes, etc. from one meeting to the next?

If the meeting exceeds the defining factors as explained in 8:4 as to which describes the difference between a meeting or a session, then isn't it also a requirement that a session exceeding those definitions would require a bylaw stating the length of the session?

Seems that there are several organizations and certifications related to being a parliamentarian. Can you recommend which organization is best for an old fart to get certified? I don't intend to serve in that capacity but would simply like to achieve my credibility to advise. Thanks in advance.

Per 25:9 n7, does a rule need to be suspended first or can any member of the board simply make the motion at any time?

Does the chair alone determine this or is it a vote and determined by the entire board? Once determine does it carry over to future meetings?

If a non-member of the assembly asks the chair if they can speak, can the chair alone deny the request or does the entire assembly need to vote?

If the board continues to function under the rules of a year-long session rather than individual meetings/sessions per 8:4, would that be considered a continuing breach warranting a point of order at any time?

So you're saying that even though this chair believes the meetings are year-long sessions, the rule that prevents the motion from being raised again within the same session can be suspended, and must be suspended prior to the intended motion to be renewed? Motion to suspend will require a second, not debatable or amendable and a 2/3rds vote.

I understand that, but my original question was if they proceed in the manner that I described in my OP is that considered to be a breach of a continuing nature or does it simply pass and is too late to do anything about it?

This is very confusing because the motion to be presented is going to be a motion to Rescind! I get it, there is no such motion as renewal but 38:3 (2) also says, "Any motion that is still applicable can be renewed at a later session, except where a specific rule prevents its renewal;... So regardless of whether we're dealing with a meeting or a session, Rule 6:27 (4) says you can't rescind a motion that failed...period. Seems to me that a contradiction exists because if you can always renew a failed motion that's attempting to be renewed with the motion to Rescind then the rule stated in 6:27 for Rescinding is perhaps flawed. What am I missing?

Not really sure where you got that impression but the opposite is quite true. The chair believes that the sessions last the entire year (this is something I've argued against for months with many letters to the board). The motion on this Thursdays agenda is to Rescind, but 6:27 (4) quite clearly states that you can only Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted on a motion that passed. Not sure what the difference between being a meeting or a session has to do with the Rescind or ASPA motion? I don't believe there's a time limit on either of those motions?

This question came about based on the response of Alicia Percell in the thread titled "Motion passed but later found to be against the bylaws". She said: The subject of this post says that the motion was later found to be against the "bylaws" but the question posted says it went against a "standing rule." The correct answer depends VERY MUCH on which of those two it is. Which type of rule does it violate? The bylaws? Or a standing rule? The response implies to me that there may be significant difference in remedies for different types of violations. Just curious.

Rumored to happen at this Thursday's meeting of the Board. The Board will vote to Rescind a failed motion to pass the 2023 budget because they have coerced a member who voted NO to change their vote a YES. The white hats on the Board know that you can't rescind a failed motion so they will raise a point of order and appeal the decision of the chair. It's also anticipated that the chair and majority of other black hats will sustain the ruling and allow the vote to approve the budget take place anyway. Question: Will this be allowed to happen because it was voted on and passed or will this be considered a breach of a continuing nature? I know you guys don't give legal advise, but some are wondering if the budget is passed in this parliamentary illegal manner and if it's a breach of a continuing nature, does it open the door for actual legal suit?

What's the difference in remedies when it's determined at a later date that a motion violated: 1. a Bylaw 2. a Special Rule of Order 3. a Standing Rule

Incorrect...Go Navy!!!!!!!!

What I see is Rescind will make a previous motion disappear as if it never happened. Amending will simply change the motion! Our Board will attempt to Rescind a motion that failed at the last meeting but what they're really trying to do is nullify the "NO" vote that caused a proposed budget to fail. They were first going to Reconsider the motion but when they figured out that that was not going to fly they're attempting to come back with Rescind! I know....the board needs an education on RONR!

Since these two motions are basically two forms of the same incidental motion can someone please explain why one motion would be used over the use of the other. Seems to me that you can only use Rescind if something was previously adopted? You can't Rescind a motion that failed because wouldn't that be attempting to change the outcome of a vote that can, basically, only be done immediately following the vote?

50:21 talks about the Chair of the committee calling the initial meeting together. Can the chair of a Standing Committee call a meeting of the committee at any other time or are the future meetings restricted to the next scheduled date? I'm assuming that the chair as well as any two members of a committee can call for a meeting whenever they believe it may be necessary but 50:21 doesn't exactly make that clear.

If not authorized with a special rule of order, would it be appropriate to call a point of order to deem the consent agenda out of order?

Is it not true that a consent agenda must first be approved for use by a special rule of order? The Board in our organization occasionally uses one, however, it has not been authorized for use by a special rule of order! Our bad!

So there seems to be a hierarchy between a 2/3rd's requirement and the majority of the entire membership. Seems that you can have a 2/3rd's vote fail because you didn't achieve the 2/3rd's but the same vote that caused the motion to fail can also cause it to pass based on a majority of the entire membership. In the scenario above, a 5-4 vote failed the 2/3rd's requirement but the motion could still be passed using the majority of the entire membership! So it seems to me that the Small Board Rules do, in fact, affect the voting thresholds considering it's much easier to achieve the majority of the entire membership in small boards! What am I missing?

So then, if the vote was 5-4 and the Chair declared the motion failed, someone should have made a point of order and challenged the ruling? But once it's pointed out that the majority of the entire membership actually passed the motion then the motion would/should be considered passed!

Regarding a meeting of the Small Board consisting of 9 Members... If a motion requires a 2/3rds vote (6 members) the motion can still be passed with a majority of the entire membership (only 5 members), assuming there's nothing in the Bylaws stipulating otherwise. I know it is what it is, but do you think this is appropriate to use in small boards?

To manipulate the vote. At the last meeting a director voted on an issue and caused it to fail. After the meeting he was ganged-up on by several other members and was convinced to change his vote. They now want to Reconsider the motion so that he can vote for the motion.

Big discussion on whether or not our Board meetings are individual monthly meetings or year-long sessions because some motions require 2 readings and 2 votes. Question: If each meeting was to be considered as only one meeting in a year-long session, then would/should Unfinished Business be addressed at every meeting or only be addressed on or near the last day of the last meeting? Seems to me that you only go thru the items on an Agenda once and when you're done the meeting/session is over. Each meeting currently has Unfinished Business which means to me, each meeting is in fact a separate session or else they would need to establish an Agenda as a special rule of order and a Bylaw that establishes that the session is one -year long. They currently don't Approve the Agenda's so I assume that they believe they are following the standard order of business but still claim it's a year-long session.