Tomm

Does a board president have the lone authority to prevent a motion from another Director to be placed on the agenda? Anything in RONR that addresses that?

As a simple Member, I want to submit an amendment to the bylaws at the upcoming Annual Membership Meeting. All amendments to the bylaws must be submitted to the corporate office weeks prior to the meeting. I would like to write it up as a Resolution to justify the need for the amendment but don't really want all the "Where as" clauses documented as part of the amendment. I simply want the bylaw to be amended by adding the text as stated in the "Resolved" clause. Is there a way to submit the resolution in that manner or will the "Where as " clauses automatically be eliminated? It's my understanding that Resolutions are approved in two steps which is my concern.

But don't forget to mention 45:2!

If the consent agenda has not first been properly authorized to use via special rule of order, would that have any additional affect?

No. I don't expect the rule to be mandatory but do I expect that the rule is the preferred rule but of course the board itself can decide.

I get it that 50:25 only makes it mandatory for committees but it's my understanding that using procedures for small boards also applies to boards! After all, the title "Procedures in Small Boards" is pretty much self defined.

The older text seems to make it more of an option while 50:25 makes it more mandatory.

Just curious. I thought it was much more recent than that because nobody in our organization seems to know anything about them and still believes the chair shouldn't vote even in committees.

When were the Procedure in Small Boards first established in RONR?

Yes.

Okay, the proper thing to do is to not place it on the agenda and if the motion isn't taken from the table at the next meeting it dies. What happens if it's taken from the table and the original motion required previous notice? It now comes before the assembly for a vote without previous notice. Does that have any effect on how the motion is now handled or does the previous notice from the previous meeting satisfy that requirement?

Should or could a tabled motion be put on the next meetings agenda or should it not be, and wait to see if it someone makes the motion to take it from the table?

• Call to Order • Pledge of Allegiance • Welcome and Introductions • Roll Call of Voting Members, Confirmation of Quorum • Approval of Minutes • Treasurer’s Report • Management Report • Recreation Center Update Report – Acting General Manager • Committee Recommendations It then list the many motions that will be presented by the directors. As you know, our organization requires a motion must be voted on and passed at two consecutive meetings so I'm kinda believing that after the first vote is taken the second vote on the motion becomes a special order of business? And there is a motion on the agenda that will be coming up for its second vote! The sad part is, if I look at some of the agendas from earlier in the year, they change! Sometimes they call to approve the agenda and sometimes they don't. Sometimes they call for Committee reports and sometimes they don't!

41:60 suggests that agenda's are normally not made when meetings are held on a regular frequent basis. 41:61 implies that agendas aren't always adopted. These, I believe, assume that the organization is using the standard orders of the day format? And the proper time to this is when? At the time when the first controversial motion is made or earlier in the meeting?

I understand that agenda's don't necessarily need to be voted on and approved. And I understand that they then become not much more than a "when-to-do" list of items. Questions: 1. What's the proper time and method to ask to amend an unapproved agenda? 2. If it wasn't voted on to be approved in the first place, does it need to be voted on to make a change? Example: If there are 5 motions listed on the unapproved agenda and your motion is listed as number 5 and behind several controversial motions, but you want to move it to number 2 and before those motions are presented.

Yes it is inconsistent, but by naming them all co-chairs it was the intention that the directors would be viewed more simply as committee members rather than directors! Needless to say, our organization needs to get its stuff together!

To be more specific, the committee was established with three co-chairs, all of which are members of the board. It intention is to allow a different committee member to chair each of the upcoming meetings, because the committee believes the board member co-chairs are too influential. They went as far as taking a vote to compel them not to vote!!!!. Sad part is, nobody raised a point of order to stop that vote!

A director who is a Co-Chair of a standing golf committee has scheduled a meeting (not a normally scheduled meeting) without notifying the Chair of that committee. I also believe that he has invited members of another standing committee, finance, to discuss pricing. The Board president was not notified or consulted regarding this meeting. Question: Was the Director acting within his authority or has he overstepped his bounds? The Board president believes this is a Director gone rogue and if you agree, what is the recommended remedy?

Because "A committees may not adopt its own rules except as authorized in the rules of the society or in instructions given to the committee by its parent assembly in a particular case." 50:26. So...is it safe to say that; other than any rule initially authorized by the parent assembly during the creation of a committee, the committee cannot suspend the rules of any other rule? (i.e. suspend the rule and replace the committee chair).

So are you saying that the motion to "suspend the rules" is pretty much always out of order in a committee?

It use to be in the bylaws but was removed and placed into, what's called, "Board Policies" and states: "COMMITTEE CHAIR AND CO-CHAIR All committees shall have a Board of Director as Chair and Co-Chair who shall be approved by the Board in January each year. If a Chair or Co-Chair is unwilling or incapable of satisfactorily performing the responsibilities, they may be removed from his/her position as Chair or Co-Chair by a ballot vote of a majority vote of the Board (5). The Committee Chair and Co-Chair shall conduct committee meetings unless unavailable, then another Board of Director may do so. The Committee Chair, or Co-Chair in the absence of the Chair, shall be responsible for presenting committee recommendations to the Board." 62:14 tells you that the motion may name the new occupant of the chair, but if a person is not named, then the VP presides. QUESTION: Can a motion at a committee meeting be made to suspend the rules in order to replace the chair and elect a yet unnamed person to the chair? I believe that's what 47:11 is allowing?

No, not in the case I'm referencing.

Just ask'n but...isn't one of the main problems the parenthetical reference of (4) after stating the majority of the board? We have the same situation in our organization when the bylaws reference a majority of the 9 board members as "five (5)". It creates the problem as too whether the (5) is the actual number of required votes to be cast or is the (5) just a reference as to what a majority of 9 is? Of course we should all know that the term "majority" only refers to those who cast a vote and not necessarily those in attendance of the meeting! It's a matter that requires interpretation by the assembly!

Is that the meaning behind the statement in 35:2 note 2 Standard Descriptive Characteristics where it says, "...as a result of the adoption of one or more main motions." Just curious because I would have thought it would have been stated more definitively in the SDC such as, "Only applies to main motions"?

The additional duties are essential and will eventually be required, but the expediency of that info is only because the board would like to have those numbers by the next board meeting. It's simply more of a matter a convenience to meet the time-line, by no means an emergency.