Guest Leonard Posted January 12, 2018 at 02:12 PM Report Share Posted January 12, 2018 at 02:12 PM A director with a recently lapsed membership made an important motion, which was seconded, passed and recorded in the minutes. A quorum existed, and at the time, the board was unaware of the ineligibility of this director to offer a motion and vote. Now as the next meeting approaches and the error known, how does this board proceed? Minutes are on the consent agenda. They are technically correct in content, but how do we view that motion which was made by an ineligible director at the time? Can minutes be approved within consent agenda? We also presume a new motion must be made under New Business, with a new vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted January 12, 2018 at 02:20 PM Report Share Posted January 12, 2018 at 02:20 PM I would consider the motion adopted and the minutes would of course show exactly what transpired. No changes need to be made to how the minutes are approved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Leonard Posted January 12, 2018 at 02:28 PM Report Share Posted January 12, 2018 at 02:28 PM Understood regarding minutes. So are we correct in re-surfacing the motion, and re-voting on the matter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted January 12, 2018 at 02:32 PM Report Share Posted January 12, 2018 at 02:32 PM 4 minutes ago, Guest Leonard said: Understood regarding minutes. So are we correct in re-surfacing the motion, and re-voting on the matter? No, no need to "re-vote" (which isn't a recognized RONR action, anyway). Because nobody raised a timely point of order (p. 250), the motion was properly adopted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted January 12, 2018 at 02:34 PM Report Share Posted January 12, 2018 at 02:34 PM I agree with Dr. Stackpole. This error is not one which creates a continuing breach of the rules. The motion is adopted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted January 12, 2018 at 02:58 PM Report Share Posted January 12, 2018 at 02:58 PM 25 minutes ago, jstackpo said: Because nobody raised a timely point of order (p. 250), the motion was properly adopted. I agree, so long as it passed by more than one vote. Did it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted January 12, 2018 at 03:33 PM Report Share Posted January 12, 2018 at 03:33 PM Ah, nice catch -- I missed that the ineligible person voted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Leonard Posted January 12, 2018 at 03:38 PM Report Share Posted January 12, 2018 at 03:38 PM 39 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said: I agree, so long as it passed by more than one vote. Did it? Yes, a unanimous vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Leonard Posted January 12, 2018 at 03:42 PM Report Share Posted January 12, 2018 at 03:42 PM Yes, a unanimous vote Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted January 12, 2018 at 03:55 PM Report Share Posted January 12, 2018 at 03:55 PM 12 minutes ago, Guest Leonard said: Yes, a unanimous vote It's adopted. Time to move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest aliris Posted July 18, 2018 at 12:10 PM Report Share Posted July 18, 2018 at 12:10 PM OK, what if it passed by 6/4 with 3 subsequently-discovered ineligible voters, making the vote 3/4 - a failure had it been known at the time (yeah, a mess). Now what?! TIA. Note that the reason for ineligibility is transient: out of date ethics training that can be easily remedied.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted July 18, 2018 at 12:36 PM Report Share Posted July 18, 2018 at 12:36 PM 23 minutes ago, Guest aliris said: OK, what if it passed by 6/4 with 3 subsequently-discovered ineligible voters, making the vote 3/4 - a failure had it been known at the time (yeah, a mess). Now what?! TIA. Note that the reason for ineligibility is transient: out of date ethics training that can be easily remedied.... This isn't what we have been told happened. If you wish to ask a question based upon your own set of facts, please start your own Topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest aliris Posted July 18, 2018 at 02:35 PM Report Share Posted July 18, 2018 at 02:35 PM Sorry, it's not what happened for the OP. I will repost, but sometimes folks get touchy when you haven't used a precedent and first searched! Please feel free to remove my post and with apologies I'll report as a new thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted July 18, 2018 at 02:42 PM Report Share Posted July 18, 2018 at 02:42 PM 5 minutes ago, Guest aliris said: Sorry, it's not what happened for the OP. I will repost, but sometimes folks get touchy when you haven't used a precedent and first searched! Please feel free to remove my post and with apologies I'll report as a new thread. No problem, you're forgiven. 🙂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted July 18, 2018 at 03:15 PM Report Share Posted July 18, 2018 at 03:15 PM 32 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said: No problem, you're forgiven. 🙂 I always knew you were an old softy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts