Tomm

"Hello Flatbush"! No motion was ever made. When the "Committee Recommendation" portion of the Agenda was reached the motion to Table the recommendation was made and passed.

The "Outreach & Communication Committee" made a recommendation suggesting to acquire an Ombudsman. The recommendation was Tabled by the Board until one can be found. Besides the fact that the motion to Table was probably the incorrect motion, is there a motion that would allow the recommendation to continue to be pending for such an unspecified limit of time?

Do Agenda's typically list (write out) the full text of every individual Motion that is known to be made, or are they simply referenced in a synopsis form or even referenced at all? The full text will then be read out loud when the Agenda reaches the heading such as New Business? I'm thinking that Agenda's should be simple and more like a program to a theatrical play or commencement exercise just touching on the so-called bullet points, and the full details will be presented when the Agenda finally gets to that proper Heading and not a document that's all inclusive with every little detail ?

Should the results of a vote be recorded in the Minutes? If so, should it be recorded as a simple pass or fail or should the count be posted as well?

Is your reply based on the RONR that only members can attend meetings, make motions, speak in debate and vote, or is there a cite in another Rule that better defines the difference of when a comment is just a comment or when it interferes with another assemblies business?

The Bylaws allow at meetings of the Board "time allotted for Members to make comments". This relates to non-Board members who are in attendance at Board meetings. Would it make a difference if the members were allowed to make their comments at the end of the Board meeting after the Board has concluded its business but prior to adjourning, or if they were allowed to comment during the Boards debate process, (i.e. after the chair stated the motion but before they voted.) I'm probably wrong, (as usual!) but I feel that allowing the comments during the actual debate process kinda changes the intent of the term "comment"? It's almost like allowing non-board members to actually participate in the Board meeting's motions? Or is the allowance of comments, just that comments and allowed at anytime?

From the Bylaws: A. "Cardholder(s)" is defined as a Member and/or Privilege Cardholder(s). G. "Member(s) or "Membership" is defined as Owner(s) who meet the Member qualification. Once Member qualifications are verified by the Cardholder Services Office, Member status shall be established and a Member Card with Owner's photo shall be issued by the Corporation. Members in good standing shall be considered as the membership of the Corporation. I. "Member(s) in good standing" is defined as a Member whose assessments, fees and any and all other charges are current for all Properties in which the Owner has an ownership interest and who's Member Privileges are not suspended.

If the motion passes, then Member's will have the right to speak in debate at Board meetings but Cardholder's will not! (This motion was presented at a Board meeting) I believe, if passed, this would also require a Special Rule of Order, which raises another question...? Is this the type of Special Rule that would, in fact, require previous notice? Special Rules of Order have two different requirements to pass, previous notice and 2/3rds or majority of the entire membership. When is the previous notice option required?

Our organization has Cardholder's and Member's. Cardholder's are typically renters that don't own property. Member's own property, so there's basically 2 levels of membership. Question: If a motion that requires previous notice was made to allow Cardholder's certain privileges, but amended when presented to the assembly to strike out Cardholder's and insert Members, is that considered a change in the scope of notice that would require a new previous notice and starting the process all over again?

I kinda think we're saying the same thing??? Each portion, Resolved and Preamble may or may not require a vote depending on whether or not any one of them was amended. In that case one vote would be taken. BUT, if the Resolved portion was amended, you would need a vote to approve that amendment and then you would have a second vote to approve the whole Resolution. If both the Resolved and Preamble portion were amended, then there would have been three votes taken to dispose of the entire Resolution. I wasn't implying that 3 votes were mandatory, only that if each portion required an amendment it would have taken three vote to accomplish the task?! Sorry for any confusion.

So then would I be correct to say that a Resolution requires at least 3 votes? One that amends and approves the Resolution portion, one that approves, if amended, the Whereas portion, then one that approves the whole thing?

Well then, how can the Resolved portion be amended if the assembly didn't vote whether to approve or disapprove the amendments made to it? Same for the Preamble!

So that's what I was kinda asking and alluding too in my question. It's kind of a 3 step, 3 vote process? Once both portions of the motion have been amended, voted on and approved, is there a vote to approve the Motion as a whole or was each individual vote on each portion sufficient?

The way I understand it; when a motion is offered as a Resolution, you first amend and vote on the “Resolved” portion. Once that’s finalized you amend and vote on the “Preamble/Whereas” portion. Question: Once both portions of the motion have been amended, voted on and approved, is there a vote to approve the Motion as a whole or was each individual vote on each portion sufficient?

I think Mr. Kapur has given me my answer. The Corporate Bylaws that I have does not have any method described for amending them. Perhaps there is something in the "Corporate Documents" that supersedes the Corporate Bylaws but for me to see those, I have to go thru the Corporate office and jump thru a bunch of hoops and fill out a bunch of forms then a judgement will be made whether or not I can have access! Yes, the Board made a bunch of changes to policies, which they are allowed to do, but then went into the Bylaws and rearranged them to match the new policies! Thanks for putting up with me!

I apologize if I'm not being clear. You guys have been very patient and I appreciate that very much. What happened here at a Board meeting was this; that resolution actually eliminated Article IV, SECTION 7 from the Bylaws then redirected the Rule to Article V, SECTION 6.3. The Board had previously gone thru the entire Bylaws and eliminated duplication's and contradictions. My concern is that they did this as a Board alone and did not include the approval of the general membership. There were many other "Board Policies" that were changed. In fact, 21 policies were changed and 3 were terminated altogether! A final motion was made by the Board: "I move that the following Board Policy Resolutions ("BP") be terminated as they have been integrated into the Corporate Bylaws:" The Board approved the motion and the Bylaws were changed!?!?!? One last important note: Article V, SECTION 6.3 states: "The Board shall have 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." I have not seen the Corporate Documents which I'm assuming is a different document from the Corporate Bylaws?!?!? But interpretation of Section 6.3 is that it only pertains to the Board policies and not the Bylaws as a whole? The Section states "Rules and Regulations of the corporation". It doesn't include Bylaws?

I understand and agree the Board is allowed to change the Rules that they are changing but are they allowed to change the headings in the Bylaws from "Article V, Section 6.3 to Article IV, Section 7"?

The Board Policies were changed by the Board alone and the general membership had no vote on the changes. I can understand your reply if it pertained to the general assembly changing the rules/policies but not to a Board. I thought one assembly (the Board) can't make rules that affect the general membership unless they're involved? Does that make any difference?

The Board of our recreation center organization is allowed to adopt policies that relate to rules and regulations of the various Clubs. In doing so the resolution reads as follows: "WHEREAS Article V, Section 6.3 Article IV, Section 7 of the Corporate Bylaws empowers the Board of Directors (“Board” or “Directors”) of the Recreation Centers of XXXXXXX, Inc. to adopt Policies (“BP or “Policies”) not in conflict with the Restated Articles of Incorporation (“Articles”) or Corporate Bylaws (“Bylaws”)." Question: Although the Bylaws allows the Board to adopt new policies, can the Bylaw headings be changed from Article IV, Section 7 to Article V, Section 6.3 without a motion, previous notice and a vote from the entire membership? Shouldn't a motion to "Amend Something Previous Adopted" be presented to the entire membership be required prior to allowing the Board to make such revisions to rearrange the heading in the Bylaws?

§25 Suspend the Rules Can someone please elaborate and better clarify the “however” in Standard Descriptive Characteristic 7? “In any case, no rule protecting a minority of a particular size can be suspended in the face of a negative vote as large as the minority protected by the rule.” I'm kinda having a hard time understanding what it means!

One last question! Is this motion, to establish a Special Rule of Order, the only motion that gives you this "either or" option for passage?

Yeah, I got the previous notice thing! I hope you guys get paid a lot of money because some of these rules just scramble by tiny brain! I don't know how you can keep track? I won't even read the motion to Reconsider! That's way above my pay-grade! Is the test to get credentialed as a PRP open book? They can't expect you to know this stuff off the top of your head.....can they? You guys are great. Thanks

Clear as mud!!!! You say, "For a board of nine, passing a motion requires five Yes votes. It makes no difference how many are present, how many vote No, how many abstain, how many are asleep, how many are absent--five votes are required." Five are required no matter what because you're using option (b) majority of the entire membership? So are you saying that; assuming only 5 members (a quorum) are in attendance but only 3 vote, a 2 to 1 vote would pass and a majority of the entire membership be damned?? Huh?

My misinterpretation was initiated do to the fact that we're taking about a Board. One confusion was generated by the fact that there are two options. The next confusion arose because we were talking about a Board which is subordinate to the organization, so when (b) mentioned the majority of entire membership I wrongfully assumed that option (a) would apply to the Board as sort of a stand-alone requirement on itself, but when the entire membership was mentioned I assumed it was referring to "the entire membership"! My bad! It also kinda made sense to me that the stricter 2/3rds requirement offers sorta more protection for smaller boards which is what I would think you want for a Special Rule of Order while a majority of the entire membership involves a much larger body of members and a more varied set of opinions which would drive the vote?. I still don't understand why there needs to be an option (a) of only a simple majority would suffice in any case?

Then perhaps the RONR should read: "previous notice and a 2/3rds vote unless there's vote of the majority of the entire membership"???.