Voting and A Passed Motion

[Guest disneygoof]

Set the stage...

Say the max voted dollar amount during a regular meeting is $100 per the bylaws. And lets say someone motions to spend $300.

The bylaws states something like: no monies in excess of $100 shall be paid unless by 2/3 vote of the members present and voting at a regular business meeting held subsequent to a regular business meeting at which notice in writing of the resolution of intention to pay has been given and regulary read.

2ish questions:

1. does this mean that a) motion made in meeting 1, send info to all members between meeting 1 and 2, then vote in meeting to to pass or fail? or does a thrid meeting get involved?

2. let say the committe amends the motion to say pay only the $100, it's seconded and passed. Can you ammend this in the next meeting or add to it to make the final total dollar spent $200, and then in the third meeting do it again to get the $300. Basically taking 3 meetings to get the motion passed, but in smaller chucks?

Thank you,

D.

[Guest Edgar]

Your bylaws can't be properly interpreted without reading them in their entirety, something that's beyond the scope of this forum. That said . . .

1. Nothing you've quoted says anything about sending info to all members between meetings. What appears to be required is notice given at a regular meeting prior to the regular meeting at which the motion to exceed the spending limit will be made. Such "previous notice" is not uncommon.

2. I see no reason why you couldn't adopt three separate motions at three separate meetings, each to spend $100. But amending the same motion to add $100 each time might be problematic.

Of course it all depends on the precise wording of your bylaws, not the "something like" paraphrase you've provided.

[Tim Wynn]

Each organization decides for itself the meaning of its bylaws. The members will have to figure out what is being said. If an ambiguity exists, the bylaws should be amended to add clarity. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 588-91 for Some Principles of Interpretation.

[Guest disneygoof]

Your bylaws can't be properly interpreted without reading them in their entirety, something that's beyond the scope of this forum. That said . . .

1. Nothing you've quoted says anything about sending info to all members between meetings. What appears to be required is notice given at a regular meeting prior to the regular meeting at which the motion to exceed the spending limit will be made. Such "previous notice" is not uncommon.

2. I see no reason why you couldn't adopt three separate motions at three separate meetings, each to spend $100. But amending the same motion to add $100 each time might be problematic.

Of course it all depends on the precise wording of your bylaws, not the "something like" paraphrase you've provided.

I did not have the bylaws in front of me at the time, I was sighting from memory, my appologies. So if the interpretation is to give notice in a regular meeting (meeting 1), then the next meeting (meeting 2) we can vote to pass or fail the motion or would we vote in meeting 2 to just accept the right to exceed the amount, then in meeting 3 make the final vote to pass/fail the motion?

[Guest Edgar]

So if the interpretation is to give notice in a regular meeting (meeting 1), then the next meeting (meeting 2) we can vote to pass or fail the motion or would we vote in meeting 2 to just accept the right to exceed the amount, then in meeting 3 make the final vote to pass/fail the motion?

I'm risking incurring the wrath of, well, the Wrathful One, but from what you've posted, I see no reason to wait until the third meeting. Give written notice at one meeting that you intend to make a motion at the next meeting to spend $300 and then, at the next meeting, make that motion.

But, again, it all depends on the precise language of your bylaws and the meaning of any unusual terms (such as "a resolution of intention to pay" and "regularly read").

And this is where I get off so I'll refer you to Mr. Wynn's reply (post #3).

[Gary Novosielski]

This section that you cited (not sighted) from memory sounds like a somewhat roundabout attempt to say that motions involving an expenditure of greater than $100 require previous notice and a 2/3 vote.

If that's the case, then at the next meeting it would only be necessary to say, "In accordance with notice given at the last meeting, I move to order $101 worth of pickled herring."

The motion would require a second, and would be subject to debate and amendment like any main motion, except that for final approval, it would require a 2/3 vote. There is no need to have a motion to allow the motion; the motion is in order because previous notice was given.

[Guest disneygoof]

This section that you cited (not sighted) from memory sounds like a somewhat roundabout attempt to say that motions involving an expenditure of greater than $100 require previous notice and a 2/3 vote.

If that's the case, then at the next meeting it would only be necessary to say, "In accordance with notice given at the last meeting, I move to order $101 worth of pickled herring."

The motion would require a second, and would be subject to debate and amendment like any main motion, except that for final approval, it would require a 2/3 vote. There is no need to have a motion to allow the motion; the motion is in order because previous notice was given.

Parden my lack of proper english...us Engineerings are number people, writing is low on our list. Thanks for your input, I believe this is what it says too; give notice in meeting one, give motion and vote meeting two.

In my original post I asked if I could just get a motion to this in three seperate meetings to achieve the same result, assuming there is time to do such a crazy task, I have search Roberts Rules, but can not find anything that tells we whether or not this is acceptible? Gurst_Edger seems to think it's not a problem, just courious what others think? Maybe I just don;t know exactly where to look in the RR either...???

I appreciate all your help...