Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'amending'.
Our organization gives grants. A foundation that was granted $85,000 in 2019, asked for another $85,000 grant for 2020. A Trustee filed a motion with the executive secretary, ahead of the Trustees meeting , writing: "I move to again fund the grant request, as presented, $ 85,000, and also the customary 10% contingency of $ 8,500. .. A $93,500 grant for 2020." The grants officer proposed to give only a $50,000 grant. The Trustees thus had two motions on the table: The Grants officer: $50,000 A Trustee: $ 93,500 At the meeting, the two motions were presented. As the Executive Secretary reported later in the minutes: "...This was followed by a discussion among the Trustees. A vote, either yes or no, was held on the motion to approve a $50K grant, instead of the full amount, There were 6 No votes and 5 Yes Votes. Thus, (the Grantee- applicant) will receive the full grant amount requested." The Treasurer interpreted this as an approval of the Grantee's request, $85,000. But the Trustee's motion was different, to give a $93,500 grant. While there was " a discussion among the trustees" as the Ex Sec reported, there was no motion to amend the Trustee's proposal of giving a $93,500 grant (the Grantee's $85,000 request and an added 10% contingency). The question: Do opinions expressed during a discussion affect or amend the motion on the table? Or can the motion be changed only by a proper procedure to amend it? In other words: Did the 6-5 vote authorize the $93,500 that was specified in the Trustee's motion, or just the Grantee's request for $85,000 grant, (a sum that was brought up during the discussion, but never properly incorporated into or used to amend the $93,500 motion?) Thank you, Yoram
The bylaws of an organization I belong to does not follow the framework identified in RONR. For instance, Article III in our bylaws covers "meetings" and Article VI covers "Members" and the list goes on. If the organization proposed a "reordering" of our bylaws to match that shown in RONR without any wording or bylaw amendment proposed and only rearranging the Articles and certain Sections into the format suggested, would this "reordering" necessitate it be referred to as a "general revision" as described on pp 593?