proposed bylaws changes

[Josh Martin]

By the way, I did not know that a chair could "assume" a motion. I thought it had to be stated very clearly.

Assumed motions still have to be stated clearly by the chair. The device of assuming a motion replaces the act of making and seconding a motion and is used to expedite business. Thus, if there is some routine matter of business, the chair may assume the motion and state the question rather than waiting for a member to formally move it.

As noted, that's not what happened here, as the chair did not state the motion. Bylaw amendments aren't really routine business anyway, so this wouldn't have been a circumstance where it was appropriate to assume the motion.

With the facts as presented, I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Elsman that nothing happened and notice needs to be given again.

It sounds to me, at least, that there was an unstated motion before the assembly

J. J., since stating a motion is what brings the motion before the assembly, I'm quite puzzled as to how there was an unstated motion before the assembly. From the facts presented, I have no idea how the assembly would know what Bylaw amendment was supposedly before the assembly at the time.

And the philosophical debates aside, I think from a practical perspective previous notice should certainly be provided again to protect the rights of absentees, since from the sloppy procedure I suspect most members of the assembly still have no idea what happened.

[J. J.]

J. J., since stating a motion is what brings the motion before the assembly, I'm quite puzzled as to how there was an unstated motion before the assembly. From the facts presented, I have no idea how the assembly would know what Bylaw amendment was supposedly before the assembly at the time.

And the philosophical debates aside, I think from a practical perspective previous notice should certainly be provided again to protect the rights of absentees, since from the sloppy procedure I suspect most members of the assembly still have no idea what happened.

The chair, if I understand Texex correctly, announced that item of business. No one said "I move that... " and the chair didn't say, "The question is on the adoption of ... " but it looks like the assembly understood that this item of business was pending. No member raised a point of order nor a parliamentary inquiry.

The chair then stated that this item would be laid on the table (it was a form of postpone because it was qualified with "to the next meeting" p. 206). No one raised a point of order or asked, via parliamentary inquiry, what was to be laid on the table.

If there was a bylaw motion that was pending when the motion to lay on the table (postpone) was made, I would say that no additional notice would be required. The motion was "brought up" and disposed of temporarily.

If the bylaw motion was not pending, this should have been treated as an incidental main motion to postpone the question. The motion, while unmade, was "brought up." It was disposed of by an IMM. That is a gray area in RONR however.

[Mr. J!]

It is difficult to figure this all out without actually being at the meeting....

Indeed. It sounds like it was hard to follow even for those at the meeting. I've been to a few like that.

And now it falls to you to write the minutes?

So, put your summary in the minutes, as best you can. If it's wrong, the assembly should correct it.

[J. J.]

To illustrate the second point. Assume that the society meets monthly, and that the April meeting notice was given for a bylaw amendment.

At the May meeting, before the amendment is before the assembly, with noting else pending, Joe, a member, "That the consideration of the bylaw amendment be postponed until the June meeting." It's an IMM, and Joe explains how most of the members that were interested in this were not at the meeting. The motion was adopted.

While it is a gray area in RONR, I do not believe that additional notice would be needed for the June meeting. While the motion to amend the bylaws was not directly introduced, it was "brought up" and disposed of temporarily.

[s49021]

O.K. How about if I say the following: "The chair distribted copies of proposed bylaw changes. (John Doe)asked the chair a question,'Before we get into the bylaw changes, I would like for you to tell us what you believe ....' The chair stated his answers. The chair postponed the bylaw changes.

Thank you all again for your answers.

[s49021]

distributed not distribted!!!

[Mr. J!]

O.K. How about if I say the following: "The chair distribted copies of proposed bylaw changes. (John Doe)asked the chair a question,'Before we get into the bylaw changes, I would like for you to tell us what you believe ....' The chair stated his answers. The chair postponed the bylaw changes.

Thank you all again for your answers.

I would leave out the question. (Minutes should not summarize the debate.) You could simply say, "After discussion, the chair directed...

[s49021]

J, are you saying it is o.k. to say, "there was a discussion," but not give any details about the discussion?

Thanks

[hmtcastle]

J, are you saying it is o.k. to say, "there was a discussion," but not give any details about the discussion?

Thanks

I think that's exactly what he's saying. Which "details" would you include and which would you exclude? Unless you include a verbatim transcript of the discussion, who's to say your summary is accurate?

[s49021]

Wm,

Thank you for your response.

I could indeed offer a verbatim transcript because one question was asked of the chair by a board member which concerned issues of the organization. The chair's answer was in three points. No one else offered any input to the discussion.