Newteach201

13 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

It would be a good idea to check your association bylaws.  This friendly-amendment thing is one of the most common misunderstandings of Robert's Rules.

In all but small boards, the chair should not be engaging in debate, and should yield the chair (presumably to the VP) in order to engage in debate, which is a practice that should be infrequent to the point of being rare or, ideally, unheard of.

But if the questions to the chair are restricted to Parliamentary Inquiries, there should be little occasion for debating.  And Requests for Information should always be an actual question, not an attempt to inject one's opinion.

Of course this all assumes that the chair is properly enforcing and obeying the rules. If that's not the case, a Point of Order may be raised..

I guess that's the challenge. When he injects his opinion which he often does, then we have an issue. I will continue to hash it out with our parlimentarian. 

8 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

There is no such thing as a "friendly amendment" and the mover has no right to accept or reject any amendment.  Once the motion becomes subject to debate, it belongs to the assembly, not to the move--

With respect to questions, it depends on who is asking, and of whom they are asking the question. 

Someone who has the floor can inquire (through the Chair) if the mover, or any supporter, any opponent, or anyone else present,would answer a question, and the chair will ask the person if they would care to answer it.  If it's not clear why they support or oppose, or what the consequences of adoption might be, or whether there's enough in the treasury, they can ask using a Request for Information.-- so, this might be that our assembly is poorly trained in roberts rules. 

If the question is about the proper conduct of business, or the current parliamentary situation,or whether a particular motion would be in order, then the chair answers in response to a Parliamentary Inquiry.

Ok,the friendly amendment thing might be our association bylaw. We have a weird color system too. 

The questions, maybe a poorly trained assembly. 

However, when does the chair move from answering questions to debating? I thought that was out of order?

Also, can the motion maker explain why a friendly amendment wouldn't be accepted?

But then how does the motion maker defend their motion? The chair can bias the motion being made?

You all are the best resource. When a motion is on the floor and members of the assembly are asking questions. Does the chair answer the questions or the motion maker? How is that determined? When does it become, the chair being part of the debate? Thanks 

1 hour ago, George Mervosh said:

Do your governing documents expressly authorize these electronic meetings?

I believe a motion was passed on it but I don't think if addressed anything just that we would have electronic meetings.

Hi there,

So, we had another rep assembly last night (approximately 90 people attend these). There were some attempts by the association to follow Roberts. However, the attempt seemed to make it less organized and less open. A few questions:

Should the participant list be hidden? In a normal rep assembly in person, we would be able to see each other. 

Should the voting be hidden? Also, does it have to be a voice vote? Could the hand raise feature be used while everyone sees the participant list?

Would a voice vote be required for every motion?

Should the videos of the participants be hidden? We couldn't see each other which obviously in person, we could. 

Please help me give the right info, last night was an unmitigated disaster that felt like the representatives were being suppressed by the leadership.