Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. A member recording a meeting

    This particular group has some specific qualifications that one must meet in order to be voted in as a member. There are also associate members who do not meet the full criteria. Guests can be invited to the meeting so that they might consider joining but can stay at the meeting while it proceeds. In that sense it is a public meeting: people who are not full members can be present. There is no question of disruption being an issue. The audio recording actively refutes some statements that have been made against the aggrieved party and the recording substantiates bad behavior and breach of confidences. At present, it comes down to a he said she type of thing. The audio recording proves that one of the parties involved did not speak truthfully. Threats are being made against the aggrieved party if they use these recordings when the whole mess is presented to an appeals board of the national part of this organization.
  3. Ah. A fair point, well made. I didn't consider the possibility that a legislative body could meet only once a week or that Reconsider could have been moved before the end of that day. I defer to your expertise.
  4. can passed legislation be reconsidered or amended?

    You're right about the limitations. It appears that this is does refer to the next meeting day, and as this was stated to be a legislative body, it is possible that a session might comprise a number of meetings. The question also appeared to allow for the possibility that Reconsider was moved but not taken up at the original meeting. I did qualify the answer: "if properly adopted", because my main point was to clarify that in general a motion to Reconsider does not prevent amendment. I leave it to the OP to determine if it is in order in their situation. Rescind/Amend is the most likely to be in order, but if it should happen that the question is reachable by Reconsider, the vote threshold would be lower.
  5. I was under the impression that Reconsider would be out of order, given the time elapsed since the original motion's adoption. It seems as though the alternative would be to either Rescind the originally passed motion and then pass the modified version, or to Amend Something Previously Adopted. Am I mistaken about the time limits for Reconsider (must be done before the end of a single-day session or by the end of the next meeting day in a multi-day session)? EDIT: p. 316 ll. 22-30: How can a motion to Reconsider be in order if a week elapses between the original motion and the desired reconsideration?
  6. Informal Discussion

    I believe that's when I said it took place.
  7. Voting

    Well, I was assuming that the "deemed" ineligibility was, in fact, a thing. But I see in reviewing the thread that you question that. If the original winner is still in office, then there is no vacancy, and neither an election nor an appointment is in order. But figuring out whether he's eligible certainly is.
  8. Priviledge of Chairman?

    There are informalities for committees (see RONR 11th ed., p. 500).
  9. Informal Discussion

    The question is for the period, "After the formal meeting... ." "General Good and Welfare" takes place during the meeting.
  10. Appointyed board members

    As long as officers got into office properly according to the bylaws, they're in office. It no longer matters how they got there. If conducting such a meeting is within the duties of the vice president, there's no question that the vice president should conduct the meeting.
  11. can passed legislation be reconsidered or amended?

    If the motion to Reconsider is properly adopted, and the motion is once again before the assembly, it can be amended at that point, and readopted. Of course it could also not be amended, and it could be defeated, with or without amendments.
  12. Priviledge of Chairman?

    Unlike electing an officer, selecting a committee chairman does not necessarily need to be handled as an election (unless the organization’s rules require it). It can simply be a motion to appoint a particular person. You are correct, however, that the chairman should have asked for debate.
  13. Recusal vs. Abstention

    You were told wrong, and RONR already provides plenty of clarity on this issue. “To "abstain" means not to vote at all” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 45) “A member of an assembly, in the parliamentary sense, as mentioned above, is a person entitled to full participation in its proceedings, that is, as explained in 3 and 4, the right to attend meetings, to make motions, to speak in debate, and to vote. No member can be individually deprived of these basic rights of membership—or of any basic rights concomitant to them, such as the right to make nominations or to give previous notice of a motion—except through disciplinary proceedings.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 3) If the President continues to insist that members who abstain are excluded from speaking in debate or moving to amend the motion, you need a new President. See FAQ #20.
  14. Priviledge of Chairman?

    Except perhaps the chairman railroading the election as a motion without permitting debate or other nominations.
  15. Priviledge of Chairman?

    Has the parent assembly granted this committee the authority to elect its own chairman and vice chairman? If so, it does not appear that anything which was done was improper. The rules of debate are relaxed in committees, so I see no problem with the chair making a statement while no motion is pending. I also see no problem with the chair placing this as the first item on the proposed agenda. The committee is free to amend the agenda if it wishes. The one issue I have is I am not certain what “record” the chairman is referring to. Such a statement certainly should not be included in the minutes, but if the “record” is something else, I have no problem with it. It will ultimately, of course, be up to the committee to decide whether this statement is entered into “the record,” unless the committee has its own rules governing such matters.
  16. Informal Discussion

    It's called General Good and Welfare, or Good of the Order, or Open Forum, and probably other things. It is an optional part of the Standard Order of Business, and is listed near the end of the meeting, but prior to adjournment. While it usually involves no motions or voting, some organizations handle motions relating to discipline in this section. People can also hang around after the meeting. This is called people hanging around after the meeting.
  17. Excellent advice, but the society apparently has provided for exactly that in their bylaws, so how should they proceed now? Oh, I don’t see anything wrong with suggesting that a candidate withdraw. It’s up to the candidate whether to listen to that suggestion, of course.
  18. Emailing minutes in advance

    As a practical matter, I don't think I've ever witnessed a member insisting on the reading of minutes. I agree a special rule could be adopted, but I doubt it would be needed.
  19. Informal Discussion

    If it is outside of the meeting, it is called something that happened outside the meeting. There is no special term.
  20. A member recording a meeting

    While RONR does not prohibit recording devices, it is clear that the assembly controls the meeting. If the assembly wishes to ban the use of recording devices, it is free to do so. In my view, this means that it would be inappropriate for a member to record a meeting without asking, especially if the member did so surreptitiously. The society would be fully within its rights to discipline a member who recorded a meeting without permission, in my opinion. See RONR, 11th ed., Ch. XX for information on how to do that. The lack of a recording should not really be an impediment to disciplinary proceedings. There were at least 20 witnesses, and the burden of proof in a trial for a private society is not the same as in a court of law. There is nothing said so far which suggests to me that this is a public body.
  21. A member recording a meeting

    While it may not apply in this case, there is a flip side to the recording issue for public bodies with open meetings laws. If the public is allowed by law to observe the meeting, some courts have held that the public may record or even videotape the public portions of those meetings, as long as doing so does not disrupt or endanger anyone. This will probably vary from state to state, but could affect the ability of the assembly to limit things, and suggest the involvement of an attorney (which I am not).
  22. Informal Discussion

    Following a formal meeting, there can be an informal discussion among any participants who choose to remain. What is this called? I believe the phrase "general welfare" is part of the title.
  23. ex officio member on a committee

    Yes, and the committee quite certainly must have only one “chairman” in the sense the term is used in RONR - that is, one of them will be the regular presiding officer, and certainly only one of them will be presiding at any given time. But if a committee wants to say that it has two “co-chairs,” I do not think this violates any rule in RONR. Generally, when a committee has “co-chairs,” one of them is still the “chair” in the parliamentary sense. It is usually intended to split the administrative duties, and/or to serve as an honorific. This device is especially used when the co-chairs represent different groups, and the society does not wish to show favoritism. (Just to be clear - I do not personally think co-chairs are a good idea.) So in the example you presented, if a member raised a Point of Order, I think the chair should rule the point not well taken. If these two co-chairs actually try to preside at the same time, then the member would have grounds for a Point of Order. The member could, if he wished, make a motion prohibiting the use of co-chairs, either for this committee or for all committees.
  24. Recusal vs. Abstention

    Whoever told you that is simply wrong. Abstaining means only abstaining from voting, and nothing more. For one thing, someone may participate fully in debate, and then decide to abstain based on what was said during debate. On a voice vote, or rising vote, simply answering to neither side constitutes abstaining. On a ballot vote one may "cast" a blank ballot, so it is entirely possible, even likely, to abstain without anyone ever noticing, even after participating fully in debate. Abstentions should not be called for, counted, or recorded (except in rare cases). They are essentially a non-event. The President owes you a public apology.
  25. Priviledge of Chairman?

    Who created the committee? How were its members chosen?
  26. I am on a seven member, relatively insignificant, town committee. We practice Parliamentary procedure very loosely, which in this case is not completely inappropriate, but I feel that our new chair is taking advantage of the situation. First, at our last meeting the first chairman announced that he was going to resign and, in the same statement, nominated his successor, and without a second, called a vote, which passed unanimously. The new chair then, nominated the vice chairman. She did wait for a second, then the vote was called and it passed unanimously. I did not disapprove of the changes in roles, but thought the process should have played out differently. I thought it would have been more judicious if the chairman had resigned at the close of the last meeting, then nominations The chair writes the agenda and this next meetings includes this as it's first item of business: "Chairman’s statement for entry into the record." Is this appropriate?
  1. Load more activity