Tomm

On 12/20/2022 at 2:33 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

I really wish there were more clarity on this.

Amen to that!

On 12/20/2022 at 2:25 PM, J. J. said:

I think it is a rule in the nature of a rule of order, but it protects a specific member, the president.

62:12 (5) says it is a rule of order so it's confusing?

On 12/20/2022 at 1:37 PM, George Mervosh said:

No to both questions.  See RONR (12th ed.), 2:14-22 regarding rules of order.

Read it a million times but something just doesn't click! Seems to me that there's not much difference in allowing the assembly to remove the chair (62:12) than allowing the assembly to select members of a committee? 

On 12/17/2022 at 7:28 PM, Jay M said:

The President-elect with the approval of the incoming Board shall appoint the various Committee Chairpersons before December 31 of the year, following the election.

Is this rule considered a Rule of Order and can be suspended?

On 12/19/2022 at 3:13 PM, Richard Brown said:

When going into the committee of the whole, someone else is normally selected to preside.

Roger that! I see it in 52:5 but I suppose there's nothing preventing the same person to serve as chair. 

On 12/19/2022 at 4:17 AM, puzzling said:

In some instances the president needs to leave the chair , for example if the assembly goes into the committee of the whole.

Question: Seems to me that if the assembly goes into a committee of the whole, then noting really changes does it, the chair still presides? Am I missing something?

On 12/17/2022 at 3:14 PM, Tomm said:

but what if that persons term had expired at the end of the last session and was not reelected? 

And no longer a member of the board. Do they still serve as chair to run a meeting of an assembly they are no longer a member of?

On 12/17/2022 at 3:41 PM, J. J. said:

It could be interpreted either to mean a majority is needed (more than half of the total votes cast) or 5 votes minimum are needed. 

Yes, exactly. That's my point!

Thanks

On 12/17/2022 at 3:33 PM, J. J. said:

Does the board normally have 9 members?  

Yes, 9 members

The Articles of Incorporations say:

"The affairs of the Corporation shall be conducted by a Board of Directors and such Officers as the Board may elect or appoint. The Board shall select from its own members a president, one or more vice-presidents, a secretary, and a treasurer. It may select an assistant treasurer who is not required to be a member of the Board. All Officers shall be elected at the first meeting of the Board of Directors in January of each year and shall hold office for a period of one (1) year and until their successors are elected and installed. The number of Directors shall be nine (9). Directors shall be elected by the Members at an annual election in the manner prescribed in the Bylaws."

The Bylaws say:

"SECTION 2: ELECTION OF OFFICERS The Board shall meet in a closed Executive session on the first business day after January 1 for election of Officers. The Board shall select from their own number, by majority ballot vote of the Board (5), the Officers who shall serve for the term of one year to end at the election of Officers in the following year. A Board of Director may be re-elected to consecutive terms as an Officer if he/she receives the majority vote of the Board (5)."

Question: Who runs the meeting in January to select the new officers? 

The Articles of Incorporation specify "and until their successors are elected and installed" so I assume the current president from the term that was just completed will chair the meeting but what if that persons term had expired at the end of the last session and was not reelected?  

As a side note; is it proper to say "by majority votes of the Board (5)" and include the (5)? Seems that that would make it mandatory that 5 members vote and eliminate the opportunity for some to abstain.

On 12/16/2022 at 10:08 PM, Alicia Percell, PRP said:

What else do you imagine when it says, "The rules governing such meetings are different...?"

It just doesn't seem to enforce the use in small boards in a more assertive manner similar to that 50:25 does for committees, but I acknowledge your point. It's just that I'm use to seeing our board flip back and forth to where sometimes the chair votes and sometimes not, along with sometimes participating in debate. Nothing seems to have enforced any type of consistency. Our problem to address. 

On 12/16/2022 at 9:46 PM, Alicia Percell, PRP said:

Presuming it's clearly a "small board" then those ARE consistently the rules from one meeting to the next.

So you're saying then that RONR mandates small boards to always use the rules for small boards?

On 12/16/2022 at 9:27 PM, Alicia Percell, PRP said:

But if there are fewer than 12 members present, it seems RONR makes the rules different without a need for a vote. 

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?

On 12/12/2022 at 6:08 PM, Josh Martin said:

Based upon the facts presented at this time, I see no reason why there would be a continuing breach. It does not fall under any of the categories in RONR (12th ed.) 23:6.

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?

On 12/12/2022 at 6:08 PM, Josh Martin said:

the rule which prevents renewal of a motion during the same session may be suspended

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.

On 12/12/2022 at 12:57 PM, Richard Brown said:

The motion to rescind is out of order, but a motion to renew the previously failed motion by simply making it again is in order and is the proper way to proceed.

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? 

On 12/12/2022 at 11:36 AM, Atul Kapur said:

It has nothing to do with rescind. As I said, rescind is unnecessary.

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?

On 12/12/2022 at 10:54 AM, Atul Kapur said:

(session = meeting based on what you have shared previously),

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