Niki Lynn

OK, thank you–so the ballot needs to read "Yes" and "Abstain" as the choices, or just "Yes" and nothing else as a choice, and if they choose to abstain, then they just don't choose yes (leave the ballot blank). Do I have that right?

Can you elaborate on this? Since there is only one nominee per each office, there is only "Yes" or "No" on the ballot for each nominee.

So sorry- I wasn't clear enough. Assuming 40 members attend like usual, the number would be 21, correct?

This should be an easy one, but I just want to make sure I'm not missing anything important: 501(c)3 group with 40 active members, holding elections for 10 offices, for which only 5 nominations have been accepted. 1 member has accepted 2 of those 5 nominations and members can only hold one office at a time, so technically, there will only be 4 offices seated in this election at most. Secret ballots will be used for each office. There are no specifications in bylaws about percentages or # of votes needed for a nominee to be successful (besides the mention of quorum needing to be met to proceed with voting in the first place), so in this case, it is just a simple majority rules situation, right? In other words, a minimum of 21 affirmative votes gets these nominees seated in offices, and nothing else is needed besides this criterion being met, yes? Once seated, the President can/will appoint officers to open positions. Am I missing anything here? Thank you!

thanks

I know we have discussed this before, but I am not able to quickly find the threads- could someone please give me the brief version of how to discuss: Our bylaw document is being hacked away at as large changes have occurred in the organization and need to be reflected there. Instead of going through the painstaking process of amending each point of change, what process is it where the entire document can be negated and rewritten? (revoting on a whole new document). Adopting a new bylaw document will save us time but I am drawing a blank about the correct way to refer to that. Where can I find RONR reference to this?

Correct–that is the order of business that we follow. As I mentioned before, these subdivisions are given a bit of added detail to keep us efficient by listing bulletpoint topics underneath each appropriate section before being disseminated. Are you simply trying to point out the terminology we are using is incorrect? If so, I am happy to switch out the words "Order of Business" for "Agenda," but even still, I am not sure how to apply your response to potentially remedy the issue I have presented.

I am not sure what you mean or what you're missing–we do have an agenda.

Sorry, Dan–they do NOT speak to it.

Our bylaws do speak to an agenda. ETA: Our bylaws do NOT speak to an agenda.

Something like that //content.invisioncic.com/r127373/emoticons/default_smile.png

Thank you. As is sometimes the case with parliamentary procedures and the attempted enforcement of such (as the unofficial parliamentarian and Secretary) my attempts to keep the train on the tracks is often met with hesitation because "no one is gonna go to jail over this kind of stuff," and other excuses of the like. Sigh.

Agreed on all accounts–and yes, we may be stuck.

I understand this variation to our agenda might be slightly different than others' but to meet the needs of members who need/want to be informed ahead of time what will be discussed (in a general sense, reserving the right that something might change slightly if necessary between issuing the agenda with meeting reminder and the time of the meeting), as well as needing the list-form fashion to help everyone stay on board with keeping the meeting moving along according to plan, adding these bulletpoints accomplishes these goals. The problem is when the aforementioned officer is attempting to dictate the contents of other officers' reports, and I am not sure how to handle this with the authority of RONR behind me.

The President is the Meddler 😶 The officers do give reports in the same order each time as described in the bylaws. The problem is that the president is attempting to unilaterally control what makes it on to the agenda, in essence forcing officers to report on topics he has not requested be placed on the agenda.

The agenda I am describing doesn't contain what the reports contain, but it does give a bulletpoint snapshot. It is provided ahead of time to the membership as a courtesy to give them a head's up about what is to be expected come the meeting. For our board meetings, it plays an important role as well to keep the topics streamlined and accounted for as we move along in discussion. This outline helps everyone prepare how he feels is needed in regards to the planned topics. It is not required that an agenda is adopted at the beginning of the meeting, and we do not do this.

Thank you–35:2(7) was helpful! I am wondering how 2:25 applies to it, if at all.

OK, so after further inspection of 2:14-24, it seems that amending the PNPs requires the same measures as amending bylaws–prior notice & 2/3 vote, OR majority vote... That is, until you read 2:25–I believe–which states (my paraphrasing) that if a "Custom" has been established where no previous contrary provision has been made, then the organization is allowed to proceed as has become customary for that particular organization, until and unless a Point of Order conflict arises. Am I reading/understanding this correctly?

thank you–reading now //content.invisioncic.com/r127373/emoticons/default_smile.png

Generally speaking, is it proper for one officer to be able to "add" or "assign" topics to another officer's report? As the secretary for our small group (70 total, 40 active members), I have one officer in particular sending a laundry list of topics–encompassing almost every other officer's report–and insisting that they be "put on the agenda where appropriate." I refuse to add any topics to the agenda under an officer's report unless and until that specific officer requests me to do so himself. I have suggested drafting his own list of topics about which he wishes to seek information at the meeting in lieu of dictating others' reports, in the case that the topics aren't reported on through each specific officer's own volition, but he is not "getting the message." For example, the Training Director might tell me that he has no report, so I slot him for "No Report" under his section of the agenda, and the Events Director might list "Changes in Event Assignments" as the only topic of business she wishes to report on. This other (meddling) officer will send me an email with "Training Director- Recruits' Uniforms, Mentor Meeting, and Training Manual Edits" and "Events Director-Past Events Review, and Need for New Event Protocol" as the topics he has assigned to these other officers' reports. I have tried kindly but directly to inform this other officer that he only needs to send me (in order for me to prepare and pre-distribute the Agenda) the bulletpoints of those topics which *he* intends to cover in his own report–not that of any other officer–yet I still receive the laundry list prior to every board meeting. It is becoming a tense issue and I would like some direction about my stance. Question: Am I out of line by refusing to add these rogue topic assignments to the Officer Reports, unless requested of me by that specific officer, and by insisting that this other officer only send me the topics on which he wishes to report to the group regarding his own role?

Sorry–I never got notified of this reply and am just now seeing it. Currently, nowhere is it stated who can or how to amend the PNPs. The PNP's silence on this is the exact reason for my post and question. With no direction on this, I am unsure how to proceed.

I have read through 48-52 in whole, multiple times, and the only section that comes close to what I was hoping to find is 51:7, but is still not as specific as I'd hoped. I guess I am going to have to hope that I am able to author something descriptive and defining enough to lead the group to a more correct and efficient manner of reporting. If anyone has any language they've used in the past–that they'd be willing to share–to help explain how and encourage officers to deliver focused, efficient, and appropriate reports to the membership, I would happy to receive it. Thanks!

Normally, this would work, but we have too many officers for this to really cull the time spent listening to empty reports. Unfortunately, these same officers can/will give 5 minutes worth of anecdotes and extend our "what-could-have-been" 45-min mtg to a 90-min mtg. We have too many officers giving "reports" that are really just rambling because they have the fear of missing out when they see other officers getting to go up to the big, shiny podium. I would like to provide guidance that shows what IS and IS NOT report-material, as much of our time is spent being held a captive audience to the unnecessary speeches for speeches sake.

Thanks–I looked at that section and it seems like that would likely be the place–if any–for this information to be included, but it doesn't address the specifics I was after. Since that's likely the only place that would have addressed it, I assume RONR is silent about my particular question(?). I wonder if others have any best practices or rules-of-thumb, per se, for the officer reports given in their organizations, if they choose to provide more of an "office update" during that section of the Agenda rather than limit reports to only committee business. We have 10 Board Members who each go through the latest business to come through their office during the "Officer Reports" section of each meeting, but lately it has been getting somewhat unruly. We have officers going off into anecdotes, entertaining discussion and debate, repetitive unimportant reminders, and other inappropriate things during their officer report, and as the Secretary and unofficial Parliamentarian, I am trying to heard the cats, so to speak, in regards to keeping their report streamlined and keeping anything appropriate for New Business or Announcements out of Reports and limited to those respective sections of the meeting instead. This task is difficult to do without any supporting document to outline what ought and ought not to be included in a report, other than my say-so.

I have spent quite a bit of time searching and haven't been able to find a simple (or really, any) answer to the question: What is to be included in the standard Officer Report? And extra credit points for what shouldn't be included. My personal response is, "What has transacted in your office since the last report was given? What has been done?"–that's what makes up the content of an Officer Report. But, heck if I can find any authoritative evidence of that, though, so I am wondering if it's actually anywhere to be found, and if so, what is the official answer?