Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Thank you all, I find this exchange very interesting and helpful. However, I am still a neophyte (greenhorn) when it comes to RRO. Our assembly is very large (nearly 300 members) and our attendance is very low (50 or less). Many of our great members are not able to attend for many good reasons (age, health, work commitment, etc). Consequently, I felt that all or the majority of our members should have be given the opportunity to express their opinions on a given topic especially as it was a challenging or difficult one (very opposing views). The 5-page document was sitting on people's chairs as they walked into to the chamber for the meeting. I thought that RRO would have required the presenter of the motion OR the committee would have had to submit the 5-page document in ample time, prior to the actual meeting, in order to allow those attending to read it beforehand and those unable to attend to submit their views if they so wish. Thank you again for your advise and help.
  3. Today
  4. Vote of the membership (vs new vote)

    The board only has such powers that the bylaws provide.
  5. True, but... being Pres and Vice-pres is a bit dicey, to say the least.
  6. There is not enough information in your postings to answer that question. Does the board have exclusive authority to keep or remove such amenities? Does it have full power and authority of the association between membership meetings? Is it up to the discretion of the board to put matters to a vote of the general membership? Where are the answers to these questions written?
  7. No rule in RONR prohibits someone from holding more than one office.
  8. Sure, he can run for Pres and stay VP. If he looses, he remains VP. (Probably in an awkward political position, but that is his problem; not a parliamentary one) If he wins, he resigns his VP position and that vacancy is filled in whatever manner your bylaws specify.
  9. But can the VP remain in his position as VP, keeping in mind that the VP position is not subject to change in the upcoming election, or must he resign as VP to be put on the ballot for President, then making the VP position open for replacement?
  10. But can the VP remain in his present position until the election is held or must he resign as VP to run as President?
  11. Ultimately, that is done through disciplinary action.
  12. He can remain on the ballot, unless your bylaws say otherwise.
  13. Situation: Club has an upcoming Board election. Board positions are 2 yrs and only half the positions change each year. Question: Our current Vice President is not up for election this year but wishes to run for President which is open for this year. Will the current VP need to resign from that position to become a candidate for President on the ballot or can the VP remain on the Board until after the election should that person lose the run for President. The VP will not be put on the ballot by the nominating committee, but will run from the floor. Thank you in advance.
  14. Yesterday
  15. Sure, we can attempt to vote them out when their term is up. Is it your opinion that if the Board does not like the vote outcome they can simply ignore it and send another ballot as many times as needed to get the vote they want? Nothing in RRO enforces the vote of the association?
  16. Vote of the membership (vs new vote)

    Perhaps the board members could be disciplined.
  17. A vote occurred in our community that resulted in a clear majority deciding to remove an amenity. Instead of fulfilling the will of the people, the Board sent out another vote to re-vote the issue. Is there something in RR that discusses fulfilling a voted requirement before another can be offered? It seems there is no end to this 'we'll just keep voting' mindset.
  18. Informal Discussion

    Thanks for all the clarifications! Most helpful. NancyB
  19. Fundamental principles

    Does requiring some rule to be in the bylaws to be effective make it a fundamental principle?
  20. Fundamental principles

    1. A “fundamental principle of parliamentary law” is one which is considered to be so central that the rules cannot be suspended so as to violate it. “Principle underlying parliamentary law” is a more general term and refers to some of the basic tenets of parliamentary law. The fact that something is or is not a “principle underlying parliamentary law” is not generally of any significance in applying particular rules. “Basic principles” sounds quite similar to “principles underlying parliamentary law.” The fact that something is, or is not, a principle underlying parliamentary law has no particular impact on applying the rules. The principles underlying parliamentary law are, however, the foundation for many of the other rules. Does it matter? So far as I know, the book only prevents suspending the rules to break an FPPL. The book does not say that a society cannot adopt a special rule of order that violates an FPPL (although it so happens that the book has specific rules providing that many of the FPPLs can only be superseded by a rule in the bylaws). As for the issue with suspending the rules, I would just look at the examples the book provides. The text does not actually say that a special rule of order cannot violate an FPPL, just that the rules cannot be suspended to violate an FPPL. Although it certainly is the case that the text specifically provides for almost all of the FPPLs (except the one you mention) that they can only be superseded by a provision in the bylaws. This is not a fundamental principle, since the rule can be suspended by a 2/3 vote. This is instead a “principle underlying parliamentary law.”

    Based on the facts presented, I concur with Dr. Stackpole that the proper procedures to remove the directors are found in Ch. XX. I would note that it will not be in order to remove the Board of Directors in its entirety through a single motion. Each member is entitled to due process, which includes a trial on the facts of his particular case. (Arguably, however, it may be possible to combine some of the other steps - appointing a single investigative committee, for instance.) For that matter, even if formal disciplinary procedures were not required, it would seem to me that a motion to remove the Board of Directors in its entirety could be divided upon the demand of a single member. Assuming that some or all of the board members are eventually removed, the organization should proceed to fill the vacancies by the procedure outlined in its bylaws. If there are no such procedures, the society may fill the vacancies through an election, of which previous notice must be given. In any event, there should not be any concern that removing the directors will cause the organization to “cease to exist.”
  22. Well, I question whether this is, in fact, a legislative body in the sense the term is used in RONR. I suspect this is really a local government body, such as a city council (which generally operates more like other societies), or perhaps just a society that likes to style itself as a “legislative body,” such as a student government. If this truly is a legislative body, then RONR is probably not the parliamentary authority, and even if it is, it is no doubt superseded by a lengthy set of special rules of order, so what RONR says on this subject is probably not relevant anyway. ”The term legislative body refers to a constitutionally established public lawmaking body of representatives chosen by the electorate for a fixed term of office—such as Congress or a state legislature. Such a body typically (though not always) consists of two assemblies, or "houses." Its sessions may last for months, during which it meets daily and its members are paid to devote their full time to its work and can be legally compelled to attend its meetings. Each state or national legislative assembly generally has its own well-developed body of rules, interpretations, and precedents, so that the exact procedure for a particular legislative house can be found only in its own manual. In this connection, however, it should be noted that certain smaller public bodies may serve a lawmaking function yet not assume the character of a full-scale legislative assembly, and instead may somewhat resemble a board or the assembly of a society. An example of such a body might be a city council that meets weekly or monthly and whose members continue their own full-time occupations during their term of service.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 8)
  23. Fundamental principles

    So, it sounds like there is a bit of professional judgement and interpretation required by a parliamentarian in a given case. While the list on p. 263 provides some fundamental principles (thanks for pointing me to that page, Mr. Mervosh), it does not include what I would guess is another fundamental principle--the right of a minority to block, for example, taking up an item of business out of order--and that right is expressed in the 2/3-vote threshold for certain rules.
  1. Load more activity