Tomm

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?

Seems to me that this one fits the bill for being a breach of a continuing nature! So would that make, for example, the approval of the Minutes or Reports null and void?

We have touched on this before with different concerns but now the bylaws are being reviewed and revised and this still exists in the draft. The bylaws say, "...Motions made in Board meetings, excluding Executive Sessions, and Member/Board Exchanges, shall be read and passed a minimum of two times by a majority of the then serving Directors before finalized and acted upon unless readings are waived or bylaws are changed which require a vote of two-thirds (2/3) of the then serving Directors..." Obviously the board doesn't vote twice to approve the Minutes or accept the Treasures or Management reports or other incidental, subsidiary or privileged motions. By not voting twice on EVERY motion, does that constitute a breach of a continuing nature? Would it also mean that any action taken in violation of the bylaws could be null and void? Or since no point of order is made when motions are only voted on once they simply pass with no real violation?

So I guess that means if the motion was passed a considerable amount of time ago but not recorded it becomes a he said, she said and/or the motion needs too be offered again?

And, therefore, would be be required to be recorded/documented in the Minutes of that meeting.

Where 50:25 states that the procedures in small boards are used, "unless the committee is otherwise instructed by the society". What exactly does that mean? Since the Board creates standing committees I assume it is the entire Board that is responsible for "instructing otherwise?" The Chair of the committee has no authority to do so on his/her own, nor does the committee have the power to establish its own rules unless it was granted that power. Is it required to be documented either during the creation of the committee, by a special rule of order, or in the Minutes of a meeting by the Board after the committee has been well established? I guess what I'm asking is can the committee be authorized to NOT use procedures in small boards by a simple comment made somewhere along the line or does it have to be a documented authorization?

That's all it was but apparently the Board believes it must still go thru the process of getting approved by the general membership. How else would you suggest that when the state statutes and bylaws change their nomenclature and no longer coincided with the current Articles of Incorporation you update them? Are you suggesting that no amendments are necessary?

The motion was simply a house cleaning motion. The Arizona Revised State Statutes were revised and the statutes stated in the Articles no longer coincided with the Statutes. There were similar changes made to the Bylaws that no longer agreed with the Articles.

Yes.

The motion is actually to amend the Articles of Incorporation which can only be done with the approval of the membership.

"An amendment to the Restated Articles of Incorporation may be proposed by resolution of the Board of Directors or by petition signed by at least ten percent (10%) of the total membership of the Corporation as of the first day of the preceding July. The proposed amendment shall be submitted to a vote of the Members at a regular or special meeting called pursuant to the provisions of the Bylaws." Question: So would this mean that resolution must first be approved by the Board via a resolution before it can be brought before the Membership at the Annual Membership meeting. A single board member tried to submit this for the Annual meeting but the Chair wouldn't accept it because it was presented as a motion and not a resolution!

The secretary tape records the meetings and when she writes them up she includes all the discussions that took place during the debate process. She believes it better defines what the motion was about and the pro's and con's as to why the motion either passed of failed. Question: When the Chair asks if there are any corrections to the Minutes, would it be in-order to move that the discussion talk be stricken from the Minutes and only post what was done and not said as required? None of the provisions stated in 48:3 have been provided.

But if this is for disciplinary purposes, shouldn't it be held in executive session to protect the accused?

Much is said in RONR regarding the meeting Minutes but I can't seem to find anything relating to how soon after the meeting those Minutes should be available?

It's not my intention to rehash a previous post. Just want to make sure that voting procedures are not within the responsibility of the Standing Election Committee.