Tomm

Do the new rules that apply to small boards (i.e. no second, number of times to speak in debate) have to be specifically spelled out and allowed in the bylaws or standing rules to be used or are they just a given as part of the parliamentary authority?

It's a REAL GOOD start! Thanks

I would like to recommend making the allowance of e-meetings put into our corporate Bylaws, and it does appear that they are allowed for non-profits in our state, Arizona. I see that RONR recommends considering and addressing a few of the issues, (and I can see where several more are required) but all the example Bylaws I've researched only address a short paragraph that allows e-meetings in a very general manner with no real extended list of "must's" or "shall's" or details. I'm wondering if the Bylaws should only make the allowance for e-meetings and all the details of the "must's" or "shall's" should be placed in a set of Standing Rules? Is that how it's normally done?

The conditions were; that while the motion was being "postponed to a certain time", alternative places to store certain pieces of equipment would try to be found. The Main motion was causing a certain storage location to be given to another group to turn into office space. Hence, the motion to postpone was made.

So then, if "postpone to a certain time" was a motion, then am I correct that the chair should have allowed it to be amended by adding conditions to the "postponement"?

If the main motion has been stated, then a motion to "postpone to a certain time" is stated, is that motion to "postpone to a certain time" considered a "primary amendment" and a "secondary amendment" can then also be offered? We had a situation where a member wanted to make a motion to add certain conditions to the "postpone" motion, which I would have considered to be the "secondary amendment" but the chair said it was out of order! Am I correct that the chair got it wrong?

Well....I'm old and I'm cheap. LOL!, And if a new edition is coming out soon I can just wait! After all, it seems once the new edition comes out they're good for a 10 year stretches!?!? Besides, I've got you guys who can provide much more succinct responses, and I want to thank you ALL for this great resource.

I've got a worn out copy of the 8th Edition (1980's) and it's time to replace it!?!?!

I'm in desperate need for a more recent edition. Just wondering if anybody knows when the 12th Edition is scheduled for release? I see the National Association of Parliamentarians is requesting suggestions and questions. Thanks

I have a question regarding an issue that will come up Thursday at the Board meeting. Our Long Range Planning Committee has yet another “recommendation” to give to the Board. This one is rather lengthy, and while I’m not going to read all 9 pages of it, I have already emailed it to the members of the Board, it’s appeared online in the minutes of the LRPC’s last meeting, and it’s attached to the agenda, so anyone that either looks at the agenda online or shows up at the meeting will get it in its’ entirety. My question is this: If I present this to the Board without reading the document in it’s entirety, does there have to be a motion to accept the report, or can it just be accepted, the committee thanked, and we move on? Anyway, I have amendments to each of the 16 objectives that they’ve written in case someone on the Board does make a motion and it’s seconded…and I have a couple others that would soften the tone considerably. And, of course, I’m going to make the statement that we need to take the 2-3 hours it will take to discuss each of the objectives in their fullness . Anyway, do we HAVE to have a motion to accept this?

Thanks. I can see where Standing Rules can significantly shorten a set of Bylaws....especially ours!

How do you go about adding a list of Standing Rules (with things like time and place of meetings, or length and time of speakers, etc.) into the Bylaws? Do you make a Bylaw that states "The following are Standing Rules that can be amended or suspended with a majority vote" Then state the list of rules? Is there a specific way of doing it so that they're not confused with a Bylaw?

It really was necessary to provide a full explanation. Would it be appropriate to have simply made a motion to accept the committee report but not vote on it until the next meeting? In the mean time provide access (handouts?) with all the incidental details explained? Or should the report and details be provided prior to the meeting when the motion will be made?

If the duties of an officer, is considered a "special rule of order" because it specifically specifies their duties other than those that would have been specified in RONR, am I correct that it cannot be suspended because its contained within and as part of the Bylaws?

Is there a limit to the length of a motion? A committee was assigned to look into and set-up a new procedure for selling tickets to the entertainment shows provided to our members. That involved an additional cost for using a specialized third-party software program, which involved added costs to the members. The explanation was so long and involved that when it was finally presented to the membership, it was shortened in length which ended up creating more questions than answers. How should long and very involved motions be presented to it membership?

I'm still very confused between the motions "Lay on the Table" and "Postpone to a Certain Time" even after reading FAQ's. Is it fair to say that regardless whether we're talking about a "meeting" or a "session", that whatever is being tabled or postponed must be reintroduced no later than the next "meeting" or "session", if not it dies? I think I do understand that the original intention of "Lay on the Table" is meant to be used within a meeting or session when an urgent issue interrupts the pending business, but can also be carried over to next meeting or session?

The "Three-Meeting" requirement was something that was done when the Board decided to open all meetings to the public. I think it has something to do with Title 10 or Title 33 open meetings statute?!?! If I'm understanding RR correctly, the "Postpone to a Certain Time" has time limits depending on a "meeting" or "session". In either case, the postponement seems to only last until the next meeting or session. The scenario that concerns me is; what if there was a motion pending that first requires information from a state or local authority and it wouldn't be proper to vote on that issue until you received that information. It could takes weeks, or even months before you received that information. I guess I'm asking if you can postpone until that information is received? What's the proper motion to delay the vote?

You say it can be taken from the Table even though you state that it's a separate session? Is it because meetings are held more frequently than quarterly as stated on RR , that it can be removed from the Table at a later date and didn't simply die at the end of the current meeting?

Our senior community is run by a 501 c 3 corporation with a board of 9 members. In an effort of transparency these board meetings are open to the (paid) members of the community, but the only participation we’re allowed to perform is to make comments during the debate stage when the motion is pending, we can’t vote, only the board votes. The board holds a meeting every 2 weeks and each new motion must be presented in each of the following three meetings before its final vote. I assume presenting each new motion in 3 consecutive meetings covers the previous notice requirement, but my question is; when it comes to the motion to “Lay on the Table” are each of these meetings considered a “meeting” or are they simply a continuation of a “session?” Can a Tabled item be reintroduced at the next meeting of does it die at the end of each meeting and “postpone to a certain time” needs to be used?

The Corporate By-laws specified Roberts Rules as the governing authority. The Secretaries duties state that "The Secretary must adhere to the duties of the Secretary as outlined in Robert's Rules of Order..." Apparently the "Duties of the Secretary" as listed in Robert's Rules are too much to bear for the inept Secretary so a motion was made to remove "Robert's Rules of Order" from the description of the Secretary's responsibilities. My argument is that since Robert's Rules is the governing parliamentary authority of the Corporation as specified in its By-Laws, this motion is a moot-point because it changes nothing. The Secretary is still required to adhere to Robert's Rules because it's the governing authority of the Corporation! Am I correct?