Tomm

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.

First of all, thanks very much for your in-depth response, it helps! The situation arose where, in a committee meeting, an outside architect was hired to report and perform certain duties, but now additional duties are deemed to be required. It has become necessary that in order for the architect to perform those additional duties by a certain specified date, (the boards next scheduled regular meeting) her contract with the organization needs to be amended within 2 days, which would allow her firm the necessary time to compile the information on time. Assuming that only the board of directors, who issued the contract can amend it, a special meeting would be required to do so. I hardly consider that the type of emergency that would warrant waiving the 72 hour requirement. And now you know the rest of the story!

Rules in the nature of rules of order has to be one of the vaguest issues explained or defined in RONR, especially when you consider that even a bylaw that states the president shall preside at all meetings can be suspended? (62:12 n5) The difference just doesn't click with me which rules are in the nature of rules of order and can be suspended and which one's are not. It seems to me there has to be something that triggers the difference? Any suggestions? Thanks

The bylaws, regarding the Board of Directors meetings state in-part: "Special Sessions of the Board may be called by the President or upon the written request of three (3) or more Board of Directors. The purpose of the meeting shall be stated in the call and posted on the website. Except in cases of emergency, at least seventy-two (72) hours’ notice shall be given." Question: Is the 72 hour notice requirement considered to be in the nature of rules of order that can be suspended providing every member of the board has been notified and there are no absentees to protect?

I was going thru some of my old posts and came across this response from one of the forum parliamentarians on a similar question: "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." That is what piqued my interest.

Still confused! So, forgetting about the 2/3rd's vote to waive the second reading for the moment; are you saying that a bylaw requiring 2 readings would be a violation of 49:15 but a special rule of order would not?

What's the difference if there were a special rule of order providing for the multiple readings? Not sure I see a difference. So are you saying that this work around allows the multiple readings or are they still in violation of RONR?

RONR is our organizations parliamentary authority. The bylaws relating to the meetings of the Board of Directors states, in part, the following: "Motions made in Board meetings, excluding Executive Sessions, Special Sessions and the Exchanges, shall be read and passed a minimum of two times before finalized and acted upon unless readings are waived by two-thirds (2/3) majority of the Board (6)." Question: Is this a violation of 49:15 and is there a possible work around?

Yes. My bad, "Ad Hoc committee". Just got a little ahead of myself. So according to 50:26, the assembly that established the committee would have had to instruct the committee to function under the rules of a full-assembly or else they function under Procedures for Small Boards. Got it! Thanks for your response.

An Ad Hoc of more than one dozen has 3 Co-chairs. I know RONR does not approve of Co-Chairs but my question is: Question 1: Should all 3 Co-Chairs refrain from voting unless it's necessary to change the outcome of the vote? Question 2: If one is considered to be the Chair, then can or should the remaining 2 Co-Chairs vote?

What do you mean by lowering the threshold?

I'm a little confused with 9:16! Is that saying that the notice in the call of a special meeting is not, or may not, be sufficient notice if the bylaws have certain other requirements on specific items?