Tomm

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?

On 3/14/2022 at 6:31 AM, Richard Brown said:

 

I do not understand what you mean by establishing a “special 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?

On 3/13/2022 at 1:21 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Have you read 16:2?

Ah Ha!  It's an incidental motion!

On 3/13/2022 at 12:14 PM, Atul Kapur said:

this motion can be made even after the previous question has been ordered.

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

On 3/13/2022 at 10:47 AM, Josh Martin said:

I don't know exactly what you have in mind with Lay on the Table, but it's probably improper

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!

Not understanding where the 600% came from? Do you perhaps mean 60%?

They most definitely say "generally"

See above#

On 3/9/2022 at 5:51 PM, Josh Martin said:

If the rule does indeed say that the board will generally meet twice a month, however, that seems to complicate things.

That's exactly what the bylaws say: "Meetings of the Board shall be held on the days and times as designated by the Board. The President, Vice-President or his/her appointee shall preside at all meetings. Six (6) Board of Directors shall constitute a quorum. Robert’s Rules of Order shall govern procedure at all meetings of the Corporation provided they are consistent with the laws of the State of Arizona and the Corporate Documents. A Parliamentarian may be present at Board meetings at the discretion of the President...Board meetings will generally be held on the second Monday and last Thursday of the month at 9am in the Sundial Auditorium, except the months of July and August when no Board meetings are held. Board meetings may occur earlier in the month during November and December due to the holidays."

Some board members want, on a 3 month trial bases, to replace one board meeting a month with an informal meeting with the general Membership to hear their suggestions or complaints.

There's an argument among the board members. Some want to actually amend the Bylaws and others just want to try it on trial basis first. Is there a motion that can be made to accommodate the later?

If the bylaws state that the board will generally meet twice a month, is this a rule that can be suspended so that the board could instead only meet once a month for perhaps the next three month time span? 

Is this considered a Rule of Order that can be suspended with a 2/3rd's or majority of the entire membership vote?

t48, VI. Motions which require a two-thirds vote with the caveat a majority of the entire membership is also acceptable.

One item states that the motion to "Amend or Rescind Something Previously Adopted (general case, including ordinary standing rules), when previous notice has not been given." 

Two Questions:

1. If the bylaws don't specifically specify that it requires a 2/3'rds vote to amend the bylaws then would either 2/3rd's or a vote of the majority membership apply? (if the bylaws fail to specify any requirement I suppose even a majority vote might work?)

2. Even if the bylaws stated a 2/3rd's vote was required to amend a bylaw, would the majority of the entire membership still allow the amendment to be amended since it normally holds a higher threshold to achieve?  (even if you're only talking about a 9 person board meeting) 

On 3/9/2022 at 11:45 AM, Josh Martin said:

Could you provide an example of what exactly you are thinking of?

I was simply asked by a member of the board (I am not a member) how can the agenda be changed if other board members don't agree with it.

What's happening is, a motion will be made and it's on the agenda, that at the next board meeting a motion to Reconsider a motion that failed will be made. My armchair quarterbacking informed them that the motion is out of order because it needed to be made at the meeting in which it failed (37:10 (b). This is a meeting, not a session and no other motions apply.

If there is no vote to approve an agenda because the order of business is in accordance to RONR, how and can you change the agenda?

Awesome...thanks!

On 3/7/2022 at 5:34 PM, Josh Martin said:

(assuming this occurs on the same day the original motion was originally voted on).

37:10 b says the motion has to be made on the same day as it was originally presented unless you're talking about a session and the next day!

Are you saying that if the motion to reconsider was made the next day of the session then those rules limiting debate don't apply?

On 3/7/2022 at 2:30 PM, Josh Martin said:

Because the debate on the motion to Reconsider may fully enter the merits of the underlying question, however, the member can say whatever he wanted to say about the motion during debate on the motion to Reconsider.

This is where you lose me??? So you're saying he can again speak twice for 10 minutes only on the motion to reconsider the original motion but once the original motion is again brought back and debatable, he can't speak during that debate process unless he gets additional permission from the assembly? 

Okay, I think I've got it.

The member can exhaust his/her right to debate while debating the original "motion" to reconsider but once the motion is brought back he can once again debate the merits of the motion?  

Motion to Reconsider 37:21:

Regarding the ability to debate after exhausting your right to debate; can you better explain "(But such a member can pursue an equivalent purpose while the motion to Reconsider is pending, since the motion proposed to be reconsidered is also open to discussion in debate on the motion to Reconsider)"

I get the point about exhausting your two, ten-minute rule on debate but not quite understanding the additional allowable allotted time?

If at the Annual Membership Meeting where the president of the board is the acting chair and the rest of the board members are also in attendance, how are the board members in attendance to be viewed? Are they still considered as board members or simply part of the general Membership? 

On 2/25/2022 at 6:11 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Yes, emphasizing that it would, as you said, be a two-thirds vote, [by] those in attendance, and not a vote of two-thirds of those in attendance.

I'm sorry but I fail to see the difference? What am I missing?