• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About SaintCad

  1. I don't know Gary. I belonged to an organization that was the way you described: don't know the rules and don't wanna learn the rules. It does not work well.
  2. The first time I read it, I thought the Notice was going to be offered up for approval as the Agenda.
  3. As far as my answer is concerned, I was just addressing when a member would bring the issue up in the course of the AM.
  4. I believe it would be brought up when the agenda is being considered for approval. Read p 372 l 29-35
  5. But Rev Ed, Richard and I are going back and forth if only RONR applies - of course bylaws can supercede that. I contend that under RONR the Chair cannot declare an officer has resigned unless that person has followed the rules. Otherwise it needs to be removal for cause.
  6. Couldn't there be a motion to Consider as a Whole and if it passes then call for a Division?
  7. On Appeal, what justification IN RONR do you have that the officer resigned? And on a side note, don't you see how not following RONR could be open to abuse if someone says something outside the meeting in anger or frustration. And if the Chair does not need to follow RONR in regards to Request for Being Excused then why should the chair be held to follow RONR for anything else? Why, in your opinion, is a resignation different enough that RONR doesn't have to be followed whereas the rest of the rules do?
  8. "Point of Order, I didn't submit my resignation. Read RONR page 291. There is no written resignation and I did not make an oral resignation at a meeting." I think it is critical to follow RONR because as we preach to guest all the time we cannot disregard procedure for convenience.
  9. I disagree. I think that it would be a Chapter XX issue for dereliction of duties. Suppose the officer tells another (non-officer) member "I'm quitting" after a meeting, disappears for 3 months then comes back after a change of heart (and after being replaced) and says that they are still an officer because they never tendered a resignation under RONR. What would you do?
  10. Just to add, amendments are not out of order when sections are Considered by Seriatim. After that, then amendments are made to the document as a whole. But I am still confused by the motion "Adopt" the package seriatim. Is the Chair interpreting that as "Considering" by Seriatim because if it is a Division (as I would interpret such a motion) then each amendment would be dealt with as a separate item.
  11. And who they need to resign to? Does it need to be to the President or Secretary or can it be any officer? And I disagree that the resignation was withdrawn (if RONR is controlling) since the Request to be Excused from a Duty was never made p 291 l 1-6. Under RONR a message on a machine is not valid.
  12. I know with adopting standing rules a member can ask for individual rules to be considered separately. The rest of the rules are voted on and then the ones under consideration are treated separately. This prevents having to trudge through all of the non-contraversial ones that would be necessary in a Division. Is there a similar technique for bylaw amendments? Would it be in order to move to consider Proposed Amendment #37 separately?
  13. I guess I don't understand why the motion to Consider Items Seriatim is even necessary. It sounds like the committee chair is taking each bylaw amendment, bundling them all up into one package then asking them to vote on each amendment individually. Why not just present them all as separate items? If the idea is to vote on them all at once to save time, then why are they asking for (effectively) a Division of the Question? Or why not present them all at once and have a member Call for a Division if necessary? In my opinion, the committee chair has misinterpreted p 593.
  14. But is it 100% correct?