Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'amend'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • RONR Message Board – Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised
    • General Discussion
    • Advanced Discussion
    • The Robert’s Rules Website
  • About the Message Board
    • Questions or Comments about the Message Board
  • Archive
    • Archived Discussions (2010)

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Location:


Interests

Found 4 results

  1. The following administrative powers were (strangely) included in our 501c3's new/first Bylaws earlier this year. We are a public middle school PTO. Only the 5th/last of these seems reasonable to me. Policies -- Seek input and approval of school administration on all matters. Funding -- Fundraising efforts beyond dues must be approved by administration. Elections of Executive Committee -- Filling mid year vacancies requires administration approval. Special Meetings -- Administration may, on his/her own, call a special meeting. Treasurer Duties -- Draft the following year's budget with input from school administration The scope of administrative authority is so extensive, that the PTO's ability to operate as a separate 501c3 seems quite easily compromised. (I'd posted to this forum of our inability to fill our Treasurer role due to the admin approval requirement.) Undue influence could have partially been at play when the prior four PTO Mothers (officers last spring) knowingly signed these Bylaws into existence, with the administrative insertions "because he wouldn't have it any other way, and it's always how we have to operate anyway". (They are the first Bylaws for the organization, which was formed in 2016.) Could CT Statute Section 33 re nonprofit conflicts of interest be helpful to reign in administrative powers (possibly with the Executive Committee adopting conflicts of interest policies and procedures)? But it seems that we would be in a catch-22 yet again with administration approval required. Any suggestions please for what footing (from the above possibilities or others) to use in overturning the extensive administrative powers? Bylaws changes are needed of course, but how to implement this without being blocked by administration? The Bylaws Articles on Nonprofit Purposes and Powers are "clean", without administrative inclusion. However, the Policies Article includes: "This organization shall not seek to direct the administration of the school. To help ensure that the actions of this organization support the mission, vision, and direction of the school, this organization will seek the input and approval of the school's administration on all matters." Amendments to the Bylaws are stipulated normally within our Bylaws, including repeal as well, with two weeks notice and 2/3 vote of members. Only parents and teachers are members and can vote when in attendance. Administrators are not members and cannot vote. Could we move forward, seeking but without receiving, administrative approval, and have a member vote on updated Bylaws without the extensive administrative powers?
  2. There will be a motion to amend the agenda, submitting a new motion under decision items. This new motion has been previously ruled as out of order, opposes charter and past organizational practice. Is the motion to amend the agenda also out of order? Or is the motion to amend the agenda considered separate from the merits of the new motion?
  3. Can the BoD modify then, approve a policy change sent to them by a committee or must it be sent back down to the committee for modification? Thanks in advance, Patrick
  4. Can one insert text within a motion AND add text to the end of a motion with the same amendment? (provided of course that it was germane and did not raise two separate questions)? e.g., if the main motion was “the society should hire an parliamentarian to lead a seminar on parliamentary procedure”, could one move to amend the main motion by inserting “familiar with Robert’s rules,” after the word “parliamentarian” and the words “according to Robert’s Rules” after the word “procedure”? I checked both RONRIB and RONR, but no clear answer (please correct me if I’m wrong here). In theory it seems like something that shouldn’t be problematic, but not sure. If this is NOT permitted, would it be okay to strike the words “to lead a seminar on parliamentary procedure” and insert the words “familiar with Robert’s rules, to lead a seminar on parliamentary procedure according to Robert’s Rules”?
×
×
  • Create New...