Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Yesterday
  2. Nominating Committee error

    While I agree that there seems to be substantial questions about this nominating committee's report, I would just point out that RONR does not require a nominee's consent for the nomination to be valid. In the case of your reluctant president, if the nominating committee sincerely believed he was the best candidate for the office (despite his stated reluctance), they would be within their rights to list him as the committee's nominee. They would also be able to reconvene, if possible, and select another nominee. Whether a candidate wants to accept an office or not gets sorted out after he or she wins the election according to RONR - if at the time the election results are announced an elected person declines to serve, another round of balloting is held for that office.
  3. Conflict Between Bylaws and State Law

    The above exchange points out the importance of using precise terminology. Guest JayW is referring to the date on which a suspension "ends". That is a bit confusing, or ambiguous, because it leads to the question of whether the suspension ends on the final day of suspension or on the day after the final day of suspension. Mr. Honemann uses much more precise terminology by speaking in terms of "the last day of suspension". That language removes any ambiguity.
  4. Discipline and Interpretation 2006-13

    I agree with J.J.'s post above. This is ultimately a question of bylaws interpretation, but it is my opinion, based on the text in RONR and many discussions in this forum, that unless the bylaws are clear that the board has exclusive authority in a certain area, that the board is still subservient to the membership and that the membership may give the board directions and may reverse actions of the board. In my opinion, the addition of the clause "between meetings of the membership" in Official Interpretation 2006-13 and in the sample bylaws in RONR is not necessary in order for the board to be subservient to the membership, but is rather included so as to remove any doubt that the board is subservient to the membership. It is good language to include whenever it is intended that the membership, rather than the board, have the final say in the affairs of the organization.
  5. Conflict Between Bylaws and State Law

    I agree with Mr. Honemann's interpretations. New York law and Mr. Honemann's interpretation of both the law and the bylaw provision in question are the customary way of interpreting such provisions. It is customary, when counting days forward FROM a certain date or event, the day of the event from which the time starts does not count and the first day after said event counts as the first day. Conversely, when counting days backward prior to an event, such as the number of days advance notice to be given. the day of the event is not counted and the first day prior to the event counts as the first day. This also in compliance and harmony with the provision on page 92 of RONR regarding notice of meetings which reads as follows: "Special meetings can properly be called only (a) as authorized in the bylaws (see p. 576); or (b) when authorized by the assembly itself, as part of formal disciplinary procedures, for purposes of conducting a trial and determining a punishment (see footnote, p. 661). A section of the bylaws that authorizes the calling of special meetings should prescribe: 1) by whom such a meeting is to be called—which provision is usually in the form of a statement that the president (or, in large organizations, the president with the approval of the board) can call a special meeting, and that he shall call a special meeting at the written request of a specific number of members; and 2) the number of days' notice required. Unless otherwise provided in the bylaws, the number of days is computed by counting all calendar days (including holidays and weekends), excluding the day of the meeting but including the day the notice is sent."
  6. Conflict Between Bylaws and State Law

    If the first day of a six month suspension is December 18, the last day of suspension will be June 17.
  7. Thanks, J.J. From past discussions I've gathered that exclusivity is not implied, so the fact that there's a procedure in the bylaws for the board to conduct hearings does not, in and of itself, mean only the board can conduct hearings. Is it correct that even though our bylaws don't specify "between meetings", the membership would still be able to rescind or amend a board action for which they were not given exclusive authority?
  8. Thanks, Dan. I think we're both right, and it depends on the end date of the suspension. Per the bylaws, a suspension imposed today (December 17) couldn't end past June 17, 2018, which is six months from today. The variable is whether a six-month suspension that begins tomorrow (December 18) would end on June 17 or on June 18.
  9. Conflict Between Bylaws and State Law

    It seems to me that imposition of a six-month suspension beginning the day after the hearing fully complies with the bylaw limitation of "not more than six (6) months from the date of the hearing", and is also in compliance with the rule that "The day of the act or event from which the designated period of time begins to run shall not be included, but the last day of the period shall be included." This suspension isn't for "six months and one day", it's for exactly six months. If the bylaw limitation had been for "not more than one day from the date of the date of the hearing", the day after the hearing would then be the one day of suspension.
  10. Conflict Between Bylaws and State Law

    Well, I don't think that's a procedural law, but as Mr. Gerber points out, that doesn't mean you don't have to follow it. It just means you can't raise a point of order because the rules of parliamentary procedure are about something different. The law quoted is more of a definition, it's likely in the definition or time-limit section of some other law, not standing on its own, and the larger law may or may not be relevant to your situation. It is impossible to tell without context.
  11. Conflict Between Bylaws and State Law

    Ultimately it is up to your organization to interpret your rules.
  12. election qualification

    If your bylaws (or a procedural rule of law) require officers to be in good standing to hold office, the election of someone not in good in standing would be null and void (p. 445, ll. 19-22). Such a person could be removed from office, by the organization, by a point of order. I do not know if there is a requirement in your bylaws (or a procedural rule of law) that requires officers to be in good standing to hold office or if the individual is ineligible for office, on that or any other ground.
  13. First, to get a correct answer, somebody would have to look at your bylaws, in toto. I would suggest that you contact either the National Association of Parliamentarians or the American Institute of Parliamentarians to find a parliamentarian who could advise you in that regard. Second, when a board is granted "general supervision of the affairs of the Society between its business meetings (p. 586)," the membership of the organization at a meeting, may issue binding instructions to the board, and rescind or amend any action of the board (that it is not too late to change). There is an important exception, "matters placed by the by the bylaws exclusively under of the board (p. 483, ll. 9-14)." In other words, if the bylaws say, in effect, "Only the board can do this," then the assembly cannot order the board to do whatever "this" is, nor could the assembly rescind or amend that action. Whether the bylaws create an exclusive authority of the board to handle disciplinary action would require a review of your bylaws.
  14. I know that procedural rules of law take precedence over RONR and the bylaws; I'm not sure if the following is a procedural rule of law. Our bylaws state that the board can impose a penalty including a suspension "for not more than six (6) months from the date of the hearing". The board imposed a six-month suspension but stated that it began the day after the hearing, effectively imposing a suspension of six months and one day, citing "New York rules" which state "The day of the act or event from which the designated period of time begins to run shall not be included, but the last day of the period shall be included." Would this rule be considered procedural? (Actually as I've typed this I think maybe it doesn't matter. The bylaws say the board cannot impose a suspension longer than six months from the date of the hearing. If the state law does take precedence and the suspension begins the day after the hearing, that still doesn't mean the board can impose a suspension that lasts more than six months from the date of the hearing. It would mean the board can only impose a suspension of five months and 29 days.)
  15. Nominating Committee error

    And have other members, or at least one other member, lined up to support you and to make nominations.
  16. election qualification

    I think we need more information in order to weigh in on this with any authority. Is this organization a public body? Where does the Dept of labor get the authority to tell an organization it must remove an officer? Is this a labor union? Does the Dept of labor have that authority? If so, it may be, like jstackpo said, that the office never legitimately held the office in the first place. Please provide us with more information about the organization and the situation.
  17. I've read Interpretation 2006-13 and I just want to clarify if it applies in this situation. Our bylaws state that "General management of the club's affairs shall be entrusted to the Board of Directors" -- which is maybe different from saying the board has full power and authority over the affairs of the club between meetings of the membership, as is the case in the Interpretation. Our bylaws also give the Board the authority to entertain charges, carry out the hearing process, and impose penalties up to a six-month suspension from the club. (If the board feels a more severe penalty is warranted, they can recommend to the membership that the penalty be expulsion; the membership votes on the expulsion at the next annual meeting.) Can the membership vote to amend or rescind the board's suspension, assuming it is still in effect at the time the membership next meets? (Our bylaws do allow for special meetings but they're to be called by the President or the board. As well, it's a national club and members are scattered; obtaining a quorum is all but impossible except at the annual meeting.)
  18. "Presidential" Nominations

    I would say that with the lack of nomination to have a vote by ballot and whoever wins, wins.
  19. Nominating Committee error

    Yes. Raise a Point of Order, followed by an Appeal if necessary.
  20. Nominating Committee error

    Why don't you contact the nominating committee chair and politely ask what the heck is going on?
  21. Hi. Our club has elections coming up at our next meeting. The nominating committee's report was just emailed out to the members, but seems to me they must have screwed up royally. At least one person who I know was nominated for president does not appear on the list and has told me she doesn't know why she isn't. At least one other person who is on the list, says she was never asked if she was going to run again for this office. There are probably other errors I'm not necessarily privy to. I'm not on the board or anything, just a general member, but I can't let this slide by. The current president has no grasp of parliamentary procedure and has said he didn't want to run again yet his name is on the report as the sole nominee for president. It's not a mistake, this is the report the president forwarded to the webmaster for distribution to the membership. I'm not finding anything in our bylaws or Robert's Rules about what to do when the nominating committee screws up like this. What to do in this situation? I can't feel any confidence that the current president knows to call for nominations from the floor. Do I try to move that the election be postponed until the error can be fixed? Do I try to force the president to call for nominations from the floor? that's all I've been able to come up with. It's a mess and no one wants to create a stink but this is too much to let slide. Thanks for any suggestions.
  22. election qualification

    This all sounds like more of a legal question than parliamentary. But if the person was, somehow, objectively not qualified to serve then he/she wasn't IN office right from the get-go. Thus no need to resign since he/she isn't in any office to resign from. The chair should just rule (on the point of order about "good standing") that the office is vacant.
  23. Last week
  24. "Presidential" Nominations

    Desperate times call for desperate measures, so go ahead. Another option, if nobody is indeed willing to run for office, is to disband the organization.
  25. election qualification

    The Dept. of Labor investigated a protest to our election of officers. They concluded one officer was not in good standing and a new election for the office must be held. Must the officer resign or should the Board suspend the officer and appoint a qualified member until such time as the new election is held
  26. "Presidential" Nominations

    I ask because I'm the president/moderator of a non-profit organization. Our bylaws state that members will nominate and elect officers at the annual meeting. No one nominated anyone for the necessary positions, but these positions need to be filled per our bylaws. If no other member nominated anyone, is it then still inappropriate for the moderator (who is also a member) to nominate candidates for office?
  27. Guest Touman, the folks who are telling you that you must have a special election are just plain wrong. The provisions of RONR cited by Dr. Stackpole (jstackpo) and Hieu Huynh are right on point and are correct. When an election is not completed on the date specified in the bylaws (usually the annual meeting), it is simply completed as soon as practical, usually at the next meeting. Even without specifically postponing the election or setting up an adjourned meeting, this is still the way to do it. Completing the election at the May meeting was completely in accordance with RONR and was the appropriate thing to do. If someone disagrees, have them SHOW YOU an applicable rule in writing to the contrary. BTW, there is no authority in RONR for holding a "special election" in such a case. You had an incomplete election as defined on page 444 and you completed the election at the next regular meeting, just as directed by that same page. Since some of your members reading this thread may not have access to RONR, I will quote the applicable language from page 444 here: "PROVIDING FOR COMPLETION OF AN ELECTION. If an assembly wishes to adjourn when an election is incomplete, an adjourned meeting (9) should be provided for. If such an adjourned meeting is not provided for and the organization will hold another regular business session before a quarterly time interval has elapsed (see pp. 89–90), the election is completed at the next regular meeting." That language from RONR is about as clear as anything can be. Nothing else should be needed, but, if they want more, here is the applicable language from page 95: "Business that is required to be attended to "at the annual meeting" can be taken up at any time (when it is in order) during the session of the annual meeting, or, in other words, either at that meeting as originally convened or at any adjournment of it. If such an item of business has actually been taken up as required during the session of the annual meeting, it may also be postponed beyond that session in accordance with the regular rules for the motion to Postpone (see 14, especially p. 185)." What you did was correct and that should be the end of it.
  1. Load more activity
×