Tomm

Now that makes it clear as mud!

Can someone please clarify the types of Bylaws that can be suspended under the term "in the nature of rules of order"!

Seems to me that most all Bylaws determine the rules of order for the organization?!?!?!?

So now my head has exploded!

Can someone please decipher the final conclusion to the original question, "Can the rule requiring unfinished business to fall to the ground be suspended?"

"EFFECT OF A PERIODIC PARTIAL CHANGE IN BOARD MEMBERSHIP"

Can the rule requiring unfinished business to fall to the ground be suspended?

If all 3 members were re-elected, what purpose does it serve to kill any unfinished business?

It seems that none of the members are required to be brought up to speed since all were in attendance during any previous debate or discussion.  

Periodic Changes of the Board membership.

There's a Board of 9 members. One-third of those members change annually.

I would assume that if all 3 members were re-elected then any unfinished business would not have to die as the new board takes office.

If two of the three were re-elected would the one new member be viewed similar to filling a vacancy mid-year or would the unfinished business still die?

Yeah, I understand. An unfortunate turn of events caused the delay.

But what I don't get, since you brought it up is... the motion to "Postpone" has the same limits for action as "Lay on the Table"!?!? They both must be acted on by the end of the next business session (pg 183)? So if the motion to "Postpone" was used, and the information wasn't available by the end of the next session what happens?

I thought "Postponing to a certain time" pretty much had limits to the types of amendments that could be brought against it and they pretty much had to pertain to the "Day" "Meeting" or "Hour" of the postponement" as well as a "certain event". But I was under the impression that the "certain event" still couldn't extend past the end of next business session. 

Perhaps, would it have been better to just let the motion that was Tabled die and simply make a new motion at a later meeting when the information was finally available?

Can a motion that was tabled be taken from the table before the end of the next session and then be tabled again? (because the information that was expected to be available was delayed)

2 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

The requirement for notice protects absentees, so I would say no.

The fact that the agenda can be amended greatly weakens the protection for absentees, but I do not think that it would in order to have a meeting where the agenda was not posted 7 days ahead of time.

Roger-that, understood, but this is only pertains to a Board meeting with 9 members so I would assume so I would assume a majority of the entire membership would be pretty easy to achieve?

Happy Veterans Day to all of you who are Veterans from the Vietnam Era Navy Seabee! Can-Do! 

1 minute ago, Atul Kapur said:

If a question comes up about this, then the chair would have to rule on a point of order that was raised (to clarify the ambiguity in the bylaws). This ruling would be subject to appeal.

At any rate, is this the type of bylaw rule that can be suspended?

8 minutes ago, Rob Elsman said:

They're your bylaws, you tell us. 🙂

I would say that the bylaw allowed for its own amending and the agenda can be amended at any time regardless of the seven day prior notice requirement??

If the Bylaws state, "At least seven (7) days prior to all Board meetings, excluding Executive and Special Sessions, an agenda, subject to amendment, shall be posted..."

Am I understanding this correctly that an Agenda can be amended to add additional Agenda items on the day the Board holds their meeting when the adoption of the proposed Agenda is pending? 

If new items can't be added, is this a rule in the Bylaws that can be suspended?

I don't even want to go there because the Bylaws also sorta gives the Board the authority to change the Bylaws? "The Board shall have the authority to establish, change and/or delete Board Policies and any rules and regulations of the Corporation as deemed necessary and within the authority as outlined in the Corporate Documents".

The Board only added that 3 reading policy after they decided to stop holding their work session meetings behind closed doors and to start having open meetings.

I wanted to challenge the Board on 2 counts. 1. They have to start their motion readings all over again once 1/3 of the Board changes (unless they waive that rule) and 2. I was hoping to tell them that the rule was invalid! I guess I'll have to settle for 1?

Thanks for all your patience. 

3 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

The bylaws take precedence over RONR, and the rule is therefore permissible.

I really, REALLY appreciate your patience, but PLEASE bare with me!

It seems to me that you're placing the Board on the same level as the General Membership, which contradicts (at least in my mind) the Conduct of Business in Boards where it states that the rules of the Board can't conflict with those of the society? 

The Corporate Bylaws covers both the General Membership (full assembly) and the Board. Article IV Membership Meetings, Section 4 Membership Meeting Rules and Regulations states in the very first sentence "Robert's Rules of Order shall govern procedure at all meetings of the Corporation provided they are consistent with the laws of the State...."

Article V, Section 5, Meetings of the Board is where they have the special rule allowing 3 readings!

But the Board being a subordinate assembly, (§1 pg. 9, l 14-17) why can it establish the special rule that conflicts with the parliamentary authority of the full assembly? 

On 11/6/2019 at 11:21 AM, Rob Elsman said:

If RONR is the society's parliamentary authority, the "policy" of requiring three readings of a main motion is null and void, since the board is not authorized to adopt special rules of order that are in conflict with the society's rules. RONR (11th ed.), p. 486.

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

Now that we know the rule is contained in the bylaws, I agree that it appears  to be a properly adopted special rule of order, but it does provide for its own suspension. 

I was under the impression from Mr. Elsman's post that because the Board is a subordinate assembly to the parent organization, and since the parent organization specifies RONR as its parliamentary authority,  that the 3 readings is in conflict with the standard method of processing a motion as stated in RONR and therefore not permissible?

Secondly, aren't Special Rules of Order typically place outside of the Bylaws under a separate heading?

This is in the corporate bylaws of the corporation, the parent organization and not in one of the subordinate clubs..

It's a little confusing. The parent organization is a corporation that manages 8 golf courses and 7 recreation centers in an over 55 community. The "corporation" is governed by Robert's Rules, however, each individual club, (woodworking, metal shop, quilting, bocce, lawn bowling, etc) has there own set of officers and boards and there own set of Rules and Regulations. The club rules is where the current cost of membership is stated.

"Annual dues shall be determined by the club's Executive Board and approved by the membership..." 

To be clear, it's in the corporate bylaws under Article V- BOARD OF DIRECTORS, Section 5: MEETINGS OF THE BOARD.

"Motions made in the 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 two-thirds (2/3) majority of the Board."

They actually have that policy written into their Bylaws?

Board meetings are held twice a month and open to the general membership.

The Board consists of 9 members elected to 3 year terms.

Every year 1/3 of the Board members are replaced.

The Board has a policy (to encourage transparency) that Motions shall be read and passed a minimum of three times (three consecutive meetings) before finalized and acted upon. (Although, there is an escape clause for things that require immediate attention)

Question:  Regarding the EFFECT OF PERIODIC PARTIAL CHANGE IN BOARD MEMBERSHIP (pg 488-489)

If there are still Motions that are open and pending when the Board changes 1/3 of its members, do those Motions die and required to start all over again with the three readings?

The Board wants to raise the club dues. All the members of the Board were in agreement but didn't hold a vote because someone said that the Board can't make decisions that affect the general membership and just go ahead and raise the dues on its own, only the entire Members can vote to allow it. So an email will go out prior to the general membership meeting to provide previous notice.

Is this correct? Should the Board have voted?

Is Previous Notice required?

The Club doesn't really have a set of Bylaws, only "Rules and Regulations" of the Club and that's where the current cost of dues are specified.

Can a member of an organization who is in attendance at a Board Meeting, but not a member of the Board, make a "Point of Order" or "Parliamentary inquiry" or is that out of bounds because he/she is not a member of the assembly?  

We're not that smart! 🤔

And it was in a small Board meeting where everybody was on the same page!

Even if the amended motion was the exact same motion as the first but with an added item?

If a motion was made, and it passed, then a motion was immediately made to amend that motion by  "Amending something previously adopted", should the meeting minutes report the vote on the original motion that has since been amended or only report on the final motion?