Tomm

Can the pro-tem chair declare a committee of the whole and proceed with disciplinary actions?

Could you please elaborate a little as to why? (62:12 & footnote 5)

At the next regular meeting can the motion be made to suspend the rules and appoint another person to chair the meeting. That new chair person can then set the time and place for a special meeting to discipline the derelict chairperson?

So, if I understand 9:35 correctly, if a Board or any Standing Committees established in the bylaws wants to hold electronic meetings, the bylaws must allow for electronic meetings. But if the board only establishes an Ad Hoc committee, that committee is allowed to hold electronic meetings with the permission of the board at the time or anytime thereafter it was established? Is a written rule required or does the motion made and recorded in the minutes of the meeting suffice?

When any existing article or section of the bylaws is amended, should some sort of notification be noted in the bylaws themselves? Is there a proper way to note, by possibly noting a date in the margins when that change was made or is there some other preferred method? If some sort of notification is desirable, should a brand new article or section that didn't previously exist be noted? A date would at least identify when the amendment was made and you could go back to those meeting minutes when the amendments were made, or is none of the above necessary?.

But are the decisions that take place at the committee meeting really a deliberation? The committee can only submit a report but doesn't make any final decisions!

Just wondering if RONR mentions anything about who's allowed to attend a board established Ad Hoc Committee? There's nothing mentioned in our bylaws and was wondering if non-committee members, but members of the corporation, can be prevented from sitting-in on the meeting, as a guest? If no specific restriction is in the bylaws, should we be allowed to attend as a right of membership even though not being a member of the committee? An important Ad Hoc committed tasked with reviewing the bylaws is about to take place and I am very interested in attending as a guest. Any citations in RONR?

When inserting the parliamentary authority into your bylaws as stated in 56:66 should the word "Society" be replaced with the actual name of the organization?

How and where can I find out if a parliamentarian is actually credentialed?

Our board is required to have 3 separate readings and votes on a motion before it passes (with an allowable waiver option with 2/3rd's vote). I understand that RONR doesn't address the 3 reading process but it has now raised two questions. 1. Even though the entire order of business is completed in one meeting as specified in 8:4, some are implying that the session lasts for three meetings. 2. Others believe that because there's a periodic change in the board (9 member board, 3 of which term out at the end of each year) that that is a reason to call the whole year a session? They believe that just because all unfinished business dies at the end of the year that would constitute a session. It's my opinion that the changing of the membership at the end of each year has nothing to do with a session but only term limits. I also believe that each meeting is, in fact, a single session and if the sessions were too last for a year then the Bylaws would be required to specifically establish/state that, which they don't. Please advise!

Well...at this mornings meeting they amended the Bylaws which now will state that the Members can only comment on motions that are listed on the agenda! The Bylaws still say that the agenda can be amended which means to me that a brand new motion can be presented under New Business and since it wasn't listed on the agenda the Members will not be allowed to comment? But I guess that's gonna have to be the way it goes and the Members will be shut out of making any comments on those new motions. This whole issue is kinda in a state of flux and I guess we'll just have to wait to see what happens.

There use to be two locations on the agenda, one was before any of the motions were debated and the other was at the end of the meeting. The agenda use to be approved at the beginning of the meeting but they have since stopped approving the agenda and removed the member comment section, however the Bylaws still state that there will be time allotted for Member comments. I suppose the board now believes they are functioning under RONR standard Order of Business and that's why they no longer feel they need too approve the agenda, however, it seems that they are now in violation of their own Bylaws?

So if I'm understanding you correctly, to allow non-board members to participate in debate at a board meeting it would require a special rule of order, which I can understand. But if the "Member comments will be allowed at board meetings" is mentioned only in the bylaws, then does that require a special rule of order that creates an agenda that allots the time and place within the board meeting that would allow for those member comments to be made? If it's only stated in the bylaws then without a customized agenda/special rule of order, how else will the time for member comments to be known?

Yes. The member comment section relates to non board members commenting at a meeting of the board.

But would that heading be required to be placed on an agenda or does the chair simply call for comments at the mention of an Open Forum? I would think that depending on when those comments were applicable they should be asked for at a specific time...hence...listed on an agenda?

Only to the point that it would not be RONR standard order of business!

If the Bylaws state that Member Comments will be allowed at meetings of the Board, is it still necessary to establish a special rule of order and special agenda?

Ah Ha! It's an incidental motion!

How does that work? I thought once the previous question is voted on it's kinda a done deal?

I never intended that the motion to Table should or would be used, I was merely grasping for straws to hopefully see if some other possible motion had precedence. Thanks

The only reason I mentioned Lay on the Table was it appears to be the only motion that Previous Question would yield too? The new motion would basically be the same as the original motion with 2 of three proposals removed, so I assume it would not be allowed? Best option is probably to get the 2/3rd's vote for Previous Question to fail!

If that option fails could the motion be made again (same meeting) with the elimination of those controversial parts? Would thst be considered a new motion?

The 9 member board is a divided board. 5 members are power hungry and 4 are for the general Membership. A motion will be made at the next board meeting that the good guys want to basically fail as it is written. A board member (good guy) is intending to make the motion to divide the question because 2 of the 3 proposals work against the general membership. It is expected that a bad guy will immediately move Previous Question to shut down all debate. Is there a way to thwart such a motion other than Lay on the Table? Would it be permissible to restate the motion as a new motion by eliminating the 2 bad proposals from within the original motion? BTW, this motion will be amending the Bylaws, which the board has the power to do.

I am of the understanding, however, that there is no such thing as a motion to renew?

Got it 😉,... should be Directors of the Board!