Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Tim Wynn

Members
  • Posts

    5,113
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Location:
    Central Florida

Recent Profile Visitors

1,543 profile views

Tim Wynn's Achievements

  1. If the assembly has decided that the position of Executive Director is essential to the functioning of the society (though not essential to the functioning of any meeting), can the resignation of the Executive Director be accepted at a special meeting where no mention of it appears in the call, since it is a question of privilege affecting the organization of the assembly?
  2. I construe it to mean, as it applies to this thread, that it is in order for the presiding officer to consider and make a ruling on whether the resignation is a question of privilege (it is) and whether it is urgent enough to interrupt the pending business. That, to me, does not preclude further rulings about its admissibility. For example, if the member wishing to resign (let's say from the office of secretary) was unaware that his recent delinquency on his dues caused him to be automatically removed from office by a mechanism contained in the bylaws, the chair would be obliged to rule the request to be excused from a duty out of order, since no such duty currently exists. In part, my question revolves around the fact that a question of privilege can be introduced in a manner other than through the device of raising a question of privilege. I'm not pondering the likelihood of how it will be introduced; I'm inquiring about whether its being in order is directly tied to its being introduced through the use of the privileged motion to Raise a Question of Privilege (which I can't imagine is the case). Also, in the case of the privileged motion to Raise a Question of Privilege, the privileged question that is being determined is the admissibility of the member's motion as a question of privilege. There is no doubt that the member's motion is a question of privilege in this case, however that only speaks to the fact that it is urgent enough to warrant its being admitted while business is pending. What rule tells us that a question of privilege, no matter how it is introduced, is in order in a special meeting regardless of its having not been mentioned in the call? For me, so far in this thread, the explanation has a slight taste of begging the question: Raising a Question of Privilege is a privileged motion. A question of privilege can be raised by a motion to Raise a Question of Privilege. Privileged motions are in order at a special meeting. Yes, but can a resignation that is a question of privilege be accepted at a special meeting without being included in the call? Would this question of privilege (and any question of privilege) be in order in a special meeting even without mention in the call if we were to eliminate the device of Raise a Question of Privilege from the equation?
  3. I believe the question of whether the motion to Raise of a Question of Privilege is in order is significantly different than the question of whether the question of privilege so raised is in order at a special meeting. Is it solely the fact of its being a question of privilege that would make it in order at a special meeting even without its being specified in the call? Or are there other factors at work here?
  4. I would recommend asking the presiding officer about this. You can do that informally outside of a meeting, or you could do it formally in a meeting, by way of a Parliamentary Inquiry. His answer may surprise you. Perhaps he has a method in place for determining the outcome and only resorts to counting when he's uncertain. Or perhaps he's completely forgotten to consider the weighted voting in determining the result. Or perhaps there's a specific rule of the organization that he's relying on. As strange as it may seem, some organizations with weighted voting only count the actual votes on certain types of motions or when demanded by a majority of members who are present and voting. This isn't something that I recommend, but the point is that asking the presiding officer about the process will definitely shed more light on the situation. It may also bring the assembly's attention to an issue it had overlooked. You can read more about a Parliamentary Inquiry in RONR (12th ed.) 33:3-5 If you think a rule is being violated in the meeting, you can raise a Point of Order. See RONR (12th ed.) section 23 Of course, we're all assuming that this weighted voting is in accord with a specific rule of your organization. If it isn't, then the answer to your question is very clear: no, your procedure is not correct. So, check to see what your rules say on the matter.
  5. The standard order of business includes New Business at the very end. If RONR is your adopted parliamentary authority, and if you haven't adopted a special order of business, and if the periods intervening between your regular meetings are usually NOT more than a quarterly time interval, then this standard order of business (along with the heading New Business) applies to your meetings. Circulating an agenda before the meeting does not change this. "Unless a precirculated agenda is formally adopted at the session to which it applies, it is not binding as to detail or order of consideration, other than as it lists preexisting orders of the day or conforms to the standard order of business or an order of business prescribed by the rules of the organization." - RONR (12th ed.) 41:62 You can find the standard order of business in RONR (12th ed.) 41:5.
  6. It is my understanding (or misunderstanding) that if an agenda is adopted with its being intended to cover the entire session (obviously adopted by a two-thirds vote in cases where it would conflict with an existing order of business), without including any mention of adjournment, such as shown below . . . Approval of Minutes President's Report Treasurer's Report Report of Membership Committee Resolution #1 Resolution #2 Amend Rule Allowing Cell Phone Use During Meeting . . . then after all of these items have been reached and dealt with, new items of business would be in order, meaning that setting the sequence for these seven items does not prevent the consideration of additional items once this sequence has been dealt with. On the other hand, if the adopted agenda contains an adjournment (whether an hour is prescribed or not), as shown below . . . Approval of Minutes President's Report Treasurer's Report Report of Membership Committee Resolution #1 Resolution #2 Amend Rule Allowing Cell Phone Use During Meeting Adjourn . . . then, after the first seven items have been handled, introducing a new item of business before adjournment would not be in order, except through an amendment to the agenda or through the assembly's setting aside the orders of the day to take up another matter, since, by adopting the agenda, the assembly has set adjournment as the order of the day that follows item#7.
  7. Are you saying an agenda was adopted without the heading of New Business, or are you saying an agenda was adopted without any items listed under the heading of New Business, even though the heading of New Business was included in the agenda? If New Business in on the agenda, then the whole purpose of that heading is to allow members an opportunity to propose new business. Keep in mind, though, that for an agenda to be binding, it must be adopted in the session to which it applies, and while the adoption of the agenda is pending (normally at the outset of the meeting), any member can offer an amendment to that proposed agenda, which is debatable and requires a majority vote for adoption. Members may want to insert the heading of New Business into their agenda, if it's not there, just so that it clearly reflects the will of the assembly. "So long as members are reasonably prompt in claiming the floor, the chair cannot prevent the making of legitimate motions or deprive members of the right to introduce legitimate business, by hurrying through the proceedings." - RONR (12th ed.) 41:27 The gavel has nothing to do with it. "It should be noted that, under legitimate parliamentary procedure, there is no such thing as 'gaveling through' a measure." - RONR (12th ed.) 43:6 No, it's not too late. We're too focused on the gavel, here. Once a meeting has legitimately adjourned, it is too late for a point of order to be made in that meeting. However, please disavow yourself of the notion that the chair, at any time, can just prematurely say, "The meeting is adjourned," and make it so. If the chair tries such a thing, a member should immediately raise a point of order, whether this occurs in the middle of the meeting or near the end.
  8. I'm inclined to take his word for it. 🙂 It makes me wonder what Wolfgang Pauli would have thought of this question.
  9. While an assembly is considering a request to be excused from a duty, can the member who made the request withdraw it, thereby leaving the assembly with nothing to consider? a. No, this motion is subject to what is said in 33:13 b. Yes, since he's the one making the request, his withdrawal of the request makes the assembly's consideration irrelevant, tantamount to the consideration of granting permission to read a newspaper article to someone who has stated he wishes to withdraw the request because he forgot to bring the article (c. C'mon! If he's going to be so wishy-washy as to resign one minute and then unresign the next, the assembly ought to have the ability to decide on his resignation, even if for no other reason than to prevent the wasting of its time)
  10. I'm guessing that the original poster's concern is based on the fear (or past practice of the organization) that when a motion is laid on the table or postponed it merely disappears until someone (possibly the president or secretary) places it on an agenda at a future meeting in whatever form he desires. That, of course, is not the case. As has been pointed out, the motion returns in the same condition, and it should be further understood that no "slightly different" version of the motion is in order so long as the motion remains on the table or in a state of postponement, as explained below: "In addition, motions are improper that conflict with, or present practically the same question as, one still within the control of the society because not finally disposed of. If a conflicting motion were allowed in such cases, it would interfere with the freedom of the assembly in acting on the earlier motion when its consideration is resumed." - RONR (12th ed.) 39:6
  11. There's not even a requirement to read it when you receive it in your inbox. 😊
  12. "Under this procedure, nominations for committee membership can be made by any of the methods described in 46; then the nominees are voted on by ballot just as in an election of a board, a majority vote being necessary to elect." - RONR (12th ed.) 50:13. This covers all of those details quite nicely. My post related only to the footnote, which deals with suspending the rules, adopting a special rule of order, and the requirement of a bylaw provision to render a dropped nominee ineligible for election.
  13. I do not believe the word "office" or the word "officer" includes a position on a committee or an individual serving on a committee. See above.
  14. I have no such situation in mind. I had asked because I was serving in a meeting recently where I advised the assembly that this footnote DID apply to the pending election of members to a committee (a strange, familiar voice in my head whispered, "Is that what Honemann would say?").
×
×
  • Create New...