Guest Ellen Steinberg Posted March 30, 2022 at 07:55 PM Report Share Posted March 30, 2022 at 07:55 PM Our synagogue erected a sign in fornt of our buildng with specific wording in response to an particular event. Proper parliamentary procedures were followed in erecting the sign. The motion did not state the sign should remain in perpetuity not did it state a timeline to reevaluate. Our Board began the process of determining if the time was right to remove the sign, this issue was raised by a board member. In the process of our discussion which has been very difficlut, the sign blew down during a storm. One of our board members made the claim that according to Robert's Rules, we have to put the same sign back since we voted to put it up in the first place. My understanding of the rules does not support this. Can you help resolve this issue? Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted March 30, 2022 at 08:01 PM Report Share Posted March 30, 2022 at 08:01 PM On 3/30/2022 at 3:55 PM, Guest Ellen Steinberg said: the sign blew down during a storm Can't you folks take a hint (or should I say a sign)? 🙂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted March 30, 2022 at 08:07 PM Report Share Posted March 30, 2022 at 08:07 PM On 3/30/2022 at 3:55 PM, Guest Ellen Steinberg said: One of our board members made the claim that according to Robert's Rules, we have to put the same sign back since we voted to put it up in the first place. I think the answer will be very fact-specific, and there is nothing in Robert's Rules that directly addresses the question. It seems that the original motion was fully carried out, and it will take some effort and expense to put the sign back up, which may not have been anticipated when it was first decided that the sign should be erected. What were the exact words of the motion that was adopted? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts