Unauthorized amendment

[Tomm]

I understand that RONR doesn't address motions that require more than one reading at consecutive meetings, however, I'm wondering if the second reading of the motion was different than the first (no limit on dollar amount in first reading but added to the second reading) what's the proper motion to address this issue or should it be considered a first reading again?

The second reading will be presented at the next board meeting next week.

Please advise.

[Atul Kapur]

If a member of the body that is meeting thinks a rule has been violated, that person should raise a point of order. In this case, it sounds like you think this is not a valid second reading. Can't help you answer whether that's true as it's part of your rules. 

[Richard Brown]

Any rules regarding first, second or third readings will have to be found in your own rules or controlling law.  RONR does not address requiring multiple readings of a motion before it can be adopted other than in the sense that previous notice of certain motions is required or is required in order to lower the vote threshold required for passage. 

[George Mervosh]

I'm afraid to ask, but why is it "Unauthorized", Tomm?

[Tomm]

On 6/15/2022 at 1:23 PM, George Mervosh said:

I'm afraid to ask, but why is it "Unauthorized", Tomm?

I consider it "unauthorized" because the original motion is being changed without the approval of the entire board. I would have to conclude that once the original motion was presented to the board at the last meeting it no longer belonged to the maker but to the entire board, and any change is required to be voted on and approved by the entire board? 

[Rob Elsman]

I, too, am afraid to ask, but just exactly how will this happen?  The chairman of the board reads the motion before stating the question, and the secretary takes it down word for word.  Any later reading of the motion would be done by the chairman of the board or its secretary.  So, I am not certain what is going on here.  Are you saying that the secretary of the board is changing the wording of the motion?

[Tomm]

On 6/15/2022 at 1:36 PM, Rob Elsman said:

So, I am not certain what is going on here.  Are you saying that the secretary of the board is changing the wording of the motion?

I'm not sure what's going on either, but a member of the board (I'm not a member) contacted me and basically asked the original question. He apparently knows the motions that will be on the agenda of the upcoming meeting?

 

[Rob Elsman]

From experience, I have learned that this board flies by the seat of its pants, so to speak.  Because of the lack of a knowledge base about proper parliamentary procedure, there is no way to imagine what will be the result, though I think it is possible to predict the chaos in getting there.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 6/15/2022 at 4:29 PM, Tomm said:

I consider it "unauthorized" because the original motion is being changed without the approval of the entire board. I would have to conclude that once the original motion was presented to the board at the last meeting it no longer belonged to the maker but to the entire board, and any change is required to be voted on and approved by the entire board? 

I think it's safe to say that it's possible that a motion could be amended (while pending, via the normal procedures) at the second reading.  Whether it could then be passed, or whether it would reset to a first-reading status again is a question.  My guess (As you noted, RONR does not address this.) would be that it would depend on the size of the change relative to the prior reading, with respect to the scope of the original motion, much like the rules governing scope of notice with bylaws amendments.  It's the closest analogy to the rules in RONR that I can think of.  Ultimately it's up to your organization and its rules to decide.

But it sounds like you may be talking about a resolution read once, which, when it returns on second reading, has been changed--not as the result of due process, but just by pixie magic in the interval between meetings.  This is grounds for an immediate Point of Order.  Nobody has the authority to change a resolution between meetings, if the rules in RONR apply.