Tomm

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.

How about 47:50, "During a meeting the work of the parliamentarian should be limited to giving advise to the chair and, when requested, to any other member." I assume this would be a request directly from a member to the parliamentarian?

Are there any restrictions, prohibitions or special procedures for a board member ask a question directly to their parliamentarian or do all inquiries have to go thru the Chair?

My misunderstanding came from reading the explanation in C. Alan Jennings book on Robert's Rules!

Okay thanks. Got it! It is in regards to a previously stated motion but is protection against reconsidering it if the make-up of the quorum suddenly changed!

Am I understanding this correctly that this motion has nothing to do with a motion that was previously offered (motion to reconsider) but with a brand new motion that is being presented to take advantage of quorum that has suddenly found the minority to be in the majority? Another words, just because the word "reconsider" is used in both motions, the one motion has nothing to do with the other.

Sorry, typo 56:68!

By a debate among the membership and the determination of the meaning of that bylaw by a majority vote per 58:68?

If a member questions the chair about an ambiguous bylaw, and it is determined that it can only be defined/interpreted by a majority vote of the members, (56:68) can the chair make the motion to open the interpretation up to a debate and vote without having to relinquish the chair? (43:29)

Since the chair is the president of the board of directors and not really a friend of the Membership, we are anticipating an immediate adjournment. I guess we need to sneak in the motion to fix the time to which to adjourn as soon as she mentions the lack of a quorum and before she travels the meeting adjourned.

The annual membership meeting is approaching and I suspect that we will not achieve a quorum. I'm considering making the motion to fix the time to which to adjourn in order to attempt to achieve a quorum in the following weeks via phone and proxies and I suspect I will get a second. Whether or not it's before or after a vote, if the chair calls the motion out of order or simply states I will not allow that, I assume I can still appeal the decision, get a second, and force a debate and vote? I'm just unsure how deep you can go into the proper parliamentary process when you don't have a quorum. I assume any vote taken would simply require a majority of those members present.

Agreed, bad example. What about motions to postpone, commit, suspend the rules or any other subsidiary or incidental motions? Would a committee, for example, only approved by a single vote actually be a validly approved committee?