Tomm

These are the corporate bylaws. The "Meetings of the Board" portion is where the three reading and other variations I mentioned were listed.

This is the portion of RONR I just can't wrap my head around! The way I interpret RONR (which is obviously wrong) is that Robert's Rules specifies the basic set of guiding rules. Any alteration of those rules that have already been established in RONR becomes a Special Rule of Order!?!? Another words, if you can't find the rule you want or the way you want use it in the text of RONR then you create a Special Rule of Order!?!?

Standing Rules is another issue that confuses me, but I believe to be more in the order of when the meetings may start or you must turn off your cell phone. They don't really have anything to do with the way the meeting is administered, they're more of a creature comfort thing?. 

Our Board seems to have many rules in their Bylaws that I suspect should actually be Special Rules of Order. Here's some examples: (RONR is the parliamentary authority)

The Boards Bylaws requires a Main Motion to be read and approved at 3 consecutive meetings before it's considered passed. Isn't this a Special Rule of Order?

The Board Bylaws also include a method of waiving the 3 readings for an emergency or immediate implementation. Shouldn't that be done by simply Suspending the Rules of the 3 reading requirement? Should that be another Special Rule of Order or is it something that shouldn't even be mentioned in the Bylaws because a motion to Suspend the Rules could eliminate the 3 readings and is a part of the normal rules that can be found in RONR?

Allowing non-members who are attending the Boards open meetings to make comments? Bylaw or Special Rule of Order?

Thanks

So where does that leave the Primary amendment that was approved? Even though the whole procedure was incorrectly processed and the Chair allowed it to happen, is it a done-deal and the motion can actually go into effect? 

The motion was about a date to reopen amongst all this virus stuff. The main motion had one date and the primary amendment had another, which was approved. 

Way crazy stuff just happened at a Board meeting. Here's how it went...

A member made the main motion

Another member made a primary amendment

Another member made a secondary amendment

The same member who made the secondary amendment amended his amendment. The Chair didn't call it Out of Order.

The Chair worked back down the ladder to the main motion when another member made a primary amendment. A vote was taken on the primary amendment and the motion passed.

After the primary amendment passed, the member who made the original main motion withdrew her motion on her own, without a vote from the assembly, and the Chair allowed that to happen.

Question:  If the main motion was allowed to be withdrawn, does that kill the entire motion or does the now approved Primary amendment become the new main motion? 

Is there a simple answer or a specific defining structure that determines the difference between an Agenda and an Order of Business?

4 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

This statement suggests that your assembly might be misusing the motion to Lay on the Table.

You are 100% correct. The motion should have been to Postpone but somebody listed it on the next meetings Agenda anyway.

I'm kinda under the impression that if a motion is Tabled, it needs to be Taken from the Table with a motion and is not necessarily required to be put on the agenda of the next meeting whereas a motion to Postpone would automatically be listed on the next meetings Agenda as a motion that must be addressed.

Is it proper to list a Tabled Motion in an Agenda or is it a no-no? 

I don't believe there are any rules prohibiting it to be listed on the agenda but if there, it makes it a little harder to avoid if you really just wanted the motion to die!

To kinda clarify; doesn't the approval of a Primary Motion now make it the new Main Motion. If the Primary Motion is approved the Main Motion will be voted on using the exact wording of the approved Primary Motion?

Why doesn't an approved Secondary Amendment replace the Primary Amendment?

If a Secondary Amendment is "approved" does that eliminate the need to vote on the Primary Amendment because the Secondary Motion replaces the Primary Amendment? 

If a Primary Amendment is "approved" does that eliminate the need to vote on the Main motion because the Secondary Motion replaces the original Main Motion? 

It's my understanding that if the motion to "Take from Table" is made it must be voted on and approved before the original motion can be, once again, presented to the assembly ( see 34:2 & t30, 94). Is this correct?

If the motion to "Take from the Table" is "approved" can a motion to "Postpone Indefinitely" be immediately made to kill it? 

Yes, with all due respect, I too would appreciate a little more clarification! Example please!

If the Chair makes a decision that is appealed, and seconded, by the assembly, is it mandatory that the Chair allow a vote, or can he/she simply call the appeal out of order and allow his decision to stand?

A secondary amendment was tabled (I know it should have been "postponed" instead of "tabled") but then the question came up whether the entire motion (main motion, primary amendment) was tabled or was it just the secondary motion that was tabled?

I suspect the correct answer is that the entire main motion along with the primary and secondary amendments are tabled/postponed until the next meeting?

Pleas advise!

50:26...????

As I understand it, If the Board (main governing body) didn't implement or use the the Rules for Small Boards during their meetings, then none of the subordinate committees can't use it either! 

At our Navy veteran Conventions, during the Roll Call votes, the secretary calls out each individual Chapter and Office position rather than the actual names of the Delegates! It's my understanding that only "members" vote and not the offices with which they may hold?

Is this an acceptable or typical practice at Conventions or a violation of RONR? Nothing in the Bylaws establishes anything different.   

RONR 44:9 b states the majority of the entire membership at a convention pertains to the voting delegates that show up. 

1. Does the majority of the entire membership include those credentialed delegates who didn't show-up or attend the convention.

2. If a convention doesn't have/use delegates and it's one-man-one vote, is the majority of the entire membership bases only on those members who show up or does it now include each and every member of the organization? 

This is a bylaw for the meetings of the Board. It was implemented when the Board decided to hold open meetings as a show of transparency. An agenda is published 7 days prior to the Board meeting publishing the main motions that will be presented.

At the meeting, prior to the chair presenting the motion to the Board, the Board allows for member comments (these members are the guests of the meeting. They are the general membership of the corporation and not members of the Board.)  The guests, who now have had previous notice of the pending motion, can speak to the Board with comments pro and con prior to the Board actually deliberating on the motion. 

There have been occasions where the comments  have caused the Board to reevaluate and amend the motion.  

18 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

I strongly suspect the rule only applies to main motions. Surely if a motion to recess or adjourn is made, you don't read this motion at three consecutive meetings.

WOW! I didn't think of that! 

I guess if you're a textualist the statutory interpretation of "Motions made in Board meetings..." doesn't really differentiate between the types of motions!?!?!?

Would adding the term "Main Motion" be sufficient enough to correct that Bylaw and eliminate the confusion with every other type of motion?

It applies to all motions, but the Board does meet twice a month. If they want to implement a motion right away they simply vote to waive the three readings!

Assuming we are simply dealing with RONR;

As the deliberative process advances up a ladder from main motion, too a primary amendment, then too a secondary amendment.

Is this correct:

Member A can speak twice in debate on the main motion.

Member A can speak twice in debate on the primary amendment.

Member A can speak twice in debate on the secondary amendment.

However, as the amendment process works its way back down the ladder, Member A no longer has the ability to speak in debate because he/she used his/her allotted time up.

But....If Member A only spoke once on any one of the amendments, he/she could speak in debate one more time on that amendment, as the amendment process works its way back to the amended main motion?!?!

Here's the rule:

At least seven (7) days prior to all Board meetings, excluding Executive and Special Sessions, an agenda, subject to amendment, shall be posted in XXXX Facilities and/or on the XXXX website (www.xxxxxxxx.org). Motions made in Board meetings, excluding Executive and Special Sessions, shall be read and passed a minimum of three times before finalized and acted upon unless readings are waived by a two-thirds (2/3) majority of the Board (6). As soon as practicable, a brief summary of the preceding Board meeting shall be posted on the XXXX website (www.xxxxxxx.org). After approved by the Board, minutes of Board meetings, excluding Executive Sessions, will be available on the XXXX website (www.xxxxxxx.org) or to Members in good standing at no cost upon request at the Corporate Office.

Thanks to Mr. Kapur I now kinda see the the difference between an amended motion and a new one. I was kinda thinking that it was distinction without a difference but now I know!  Thanks!

So then, would I be correct that the only reason you brought up the issue of "germaneness" is because of the 3 reading requirement and whether or not the readings should start over or continue from where it was?

Forgetting about the 3 reading requirement for a moment, would you agree that by voting and adding the additional verbiage to the original motion does, in fact, cause it to become a new main motion?

Like I said, the 3 reading rule is screwing with my head! 

Now you've got me wondering; if the added "germane" verbiage didn't result in a new and separate motion, then why was it necessary to vote on the addition of the new verbiage? Could the chair simply have declared the new wording was germane and restated the motion with no additional vote on the amended wording?

I suspect that the 3 reading rule is screwing with my head! And of course an amendment to add the additional verbiage must be voted on?

Suppose the added verbiage was "for approval by the Communications & Marketing Coordinator and a Sr. Manager prior to publication"?

Couldn't that open up a whole new can of worms and questions because perhaps now, with the added verbiage, some members may only want approval from a Sr. Manager and not  from both?

Seems to me (and I'm probably wrong) that this new added approval process opens up a whole new avenue of debate and therefore is not germane?