Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'by laws'.



More search options

  • 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

Categories

There are no results to display.


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 13 results

  1. Guest

    Amending By-Laws

    Our organization recently adopted Robert's Rules to replace Cushing's Manual of Parliamentary Practice. The existing language within our by-laws to vote on amendments calls for a majority vote, which is less than the 2/3 requirement called for under Robert's Rules. I have included the relevant language below. "Any amendment to these by-laws may be proposed at any regular meeting to be adopted by a majority vote of regular members at the following regular meeting, provided the members receive written notice of such amendments at least five (5) days in advance." Does an organization have the ability to impose requirements which are less stringent than those required under Robert's Rules (i.e. waive the notice requirement or require less than a 2/3 vote)? The rules speak to imposing voting requirements which require a vote larger than two-thirds, but are silent on imposing rules which require less. Will a majority vote rule for a pending amendment, or will Article VIII, Section 48 trump our by-law as written, as it runs afoul of the "motions requiring a two-thirds vote" requirement. Any guidance is greatly appreciated.
  2. Today at a Chapter meeting a member objected to presenting and voting on a new slate of officers, stating that the Chapter must notify members and wait until the next meeting to elect them. The Chapter By laws read that the Nominating Committee will be selected at the January meeting and present the new slate of officers at the March meeting. There is no mention that the membership must be notified or that the vote should be postponed past the presentation of the slate in March. Our National By laws also state that the slate is to be presented and voted on without mention of a waiting time. The member states that these changes were voted on and are included in the Secretary's minutes but she doesn't remember when. However, even if they were, being a part of a National Society, our Chapter By laws cannot differ from theirs. How do I advise the Presiding Officer to act? Thanks.
  3. Guest

    Shirley

    How many times should by laws be read before the vote to approve the changes.
  4. What does Roberts Rule say when 2 by laws conflict? The issue is that an officer was removed by the president at a meeting without a vote or any bylaw stating the removal could be done. By laws state that the term of the office is three years. The president stated at a meeting tonight that the "officer was removed because during the vote 2 months earlier they had not received a 2/3 vote" but the election was finalized 2 months prior and that officer had already begun to serve. Under one section of the by laws titled "elections" is states that the "person receiving the majority vote wins" however later defined under "special votes" it states a quorum of 51% is required with 2/3 of those present to win" While I understand it is beyond the scope of this forum to interpret by laws, what does Roberts rules say about conflicting by laws? Also, this officer was not present when this was stated at the meeting, would this raise a point of order at the next meeting?
  5. Can a member of a board make a motion that contradicts the by-laws? Such as skipping an election, or changing rules that an officer has to be on board for a year before they can become an officer? thanks!
  6. Guest

    ASH

    Our By-Laws committee proposed several amendments to our organizations by-laws. Discussion over the proposed changes was tabled at the first meeting they were discussed at. The committee made some changes, but at the next meeting, there was not enough time to discuss and vote on the by-laws so the vote has been postponed to the next meeting. However, the committee really just wants this voted on and will not make further changes. So, the current version will be what is voted on (I assume some discussion will precede it, but no changes will be entertained). One change is somewhat controversial and may create some heated discussion (I posted on this before, adding the IPP to the exec board), other changes created no discussion. To me, they are kind of reneging on their responsibilities to see this work through to the end (though I totally understand and sympathize with their frustrations). Can a committee just stop working even if their work is not really done?
  7. One of our by law amendments will change the election from May to June. Our by laws currently say we vote at the end of the meeting in May. Suggestions on how to handle this? We've already announced the election. Can we really just put off the election. Would it be better to have the changes take effect in June so we can go ahead with the election?
  8. OK, 2 final questions: 1) Our organization (high school parent teacher organization) is entertaining a change to the by laws to include the immediate past president to as a voting member of the executive board. It is possible that the IPP would not be able to serve, as our by laws require members of the organization to have a student in the school. If the IPPs last child has graduated, they would no longer be a member. Someone on my last thread commented extensively about the issues with having the IPP on the board. Does anyone else have any opinions that might help. I can see pros and cons. 2. I've read that its possible to vote on by laws changes individually. Do we just introduce each change separately? Can some be done together? Thanks you!
  9. Below is the method required for changing a by law in our organization: AMENDING THE BYLAWS A. A standing Bylaw Committee will be selected by the General Membership or the Board of Directors at the April Membership Meeting. Any change(s) in the existing bylaws will be proposed by this Committee. B. A written document stating the Committee’s reasons for major changes will be made available. C. Any recommended changes must be put in writing and posted conspicuously one (1) month in advance to membership discussion at a general Membership meeting. D. Discussion on proposed changes will be allowed at a maximum of two (2) meetings. The second discussion is to be held only if the first necessitates changes in the proposed amendment(s). E. A vote will be taken on the proposed changes on the day of the next Membership Meeting following the final discussion. F. A two-thirds (2/3) majority of members voting will be required to pass any recommended changes. G. In case of a question of any bylaw, the Bylaw Committee shall meet with the Board and give their intent of the bylaw in question. H. A list of Bylaw Committee members will be conspicuously posted in the Center at all times. Several members have requested the By Law Committee recommend a change in the by laws, but they have refused to do so. Is there any way the General Membership can vote to force the By Law Committee to recommend a change? What other options may the General Membership have?
  10. Guest

    Revising By-Laws

    Can a Board of Directors change or amend the by-laws?
  11. By Law amendment was postponed to next meeting. How is it handled at the next meeting? Do I call for a motion and second to start discussion/vote or do I annouce it was moved and seconded at the previous meeting and move right to discussion? Thanks for guidance.
  12. Corporation by laws give responsibility to manage a subordinate subcommittee to a standing committee. A motion to authorize the subordinate to execute one of its duties was introduced. A motion to lay on the table was approved (probably illegal because its purpose was to suppress the question). As a complicating factor, the subordinate has been performing this duty without approval from the standing committee. The motion to authorize was an attempt to enforce existing by laws. Two questions: 1) Does previous usage trump the by laws? 2) Can the lack of a vote be intrepreted as a lack of approval, therefore the subordinate does not have approval for this duty?
  13. This may be a little drawn out, but I will try to keep it as brief as a I can... My organization had a recent vote to select directors for an up and coming theatre season. The deadline date for submission for interested directors was Friday, September 2nd, COB. For one show in particualr we had 4 director submissions, all in by the dead line date. It is our procedure from that point to set up interviews with the prospective directors. This was also done and our meeting was this past Monday, September 26. When setting up the interviews, two of the four directors withdrew their submissions. No big deal. The morning of the 26th a third director withdrew stating they were not prepared enough to present and interview that evening. This person is also a member of our board of directors. Once the meeting was called to oder and our chair announced that 3 of the 4 directors who had submitted had withdrawn a member of our board asked the sitting board member (who withdrew) why he had withdrawn. He explained the reasons. At the urging of numerous board members (at least the majority) he was "talked in to" presenting anyway. In the long run, he did present what he could for consideration to direct the show. Once the other director up for consideration had presented as well, we went into executive session for discussion and vote for director. With the vote cast, the board member (who was not present during the discussion) gained the majority and was to direct the play. However, our chair at that time then called in to question the validity of the vote since he had not called for a vote or motion to "allow" this board member/individual to present after he had withdrawn earlier that day. Our bylways are somewhat ambiguous on how we handle this situation. The board then put a motion forth to not allow directors who had withdrawn and not (re)submitted by the deadline (Spet 2) to present for a show. This was approved. Was it legal to amend "on the fly" for a situation that, in reality, had already happened? Should the member/individual been allowed to presnet? Should the chair had wait to question the validity of the vote after a full discussion had occurred? Should we have honored the presentation done by the member/individual and let the vote stand? We voted, by amendment noted above, and re-voted (legally/valid) without the name of that member/individual on the ballot. Thanks for anything you can wise me up on! =)
×
×
  • Create New...