Gary Novosielski

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Gary Novosielski

  • Rank
  • Birthday April 18

Profile Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

1,670 profile views
  1. What is this 2/3 vote to "suspend RONR" of which you speak?
  2. No, nor is s/he even permitted to explain why. That would constitute debate during voting, which is prohibited. If you intend to abstain and want the others present to know why, the time to make that announcment is during debate upon the motion, after being properly recognized.
  3. While we're at it, it might help to note what would have been the proper motion (usually the best course) in situations like this, which could have avoided all the counting of days and defining of sessions. When a motion requires more information before the body can intelligently vote on it, it should be referred to a committee, with instructions to research relevant questions, and report back with the information, possibly with recommendations for disapproval of the motion, or approval, possibly with amendments.
  4. There is currently no downloadable version of the 11th ed. But it is available on CD. See:
  5. No member may be forced to vote.
  6. On school boards it is typical that a member may not also be an employee, so the question never comes up. Whatever you custom may be, it is the written rules in your bylaws, and RONR that apply. And the rules in RONR say that members have the right to attend meetings, speak in debate, and to vote. RONR does recommend that members with a pecuniary interest (not in common with other members) in the outcome of a motion should refrain from voting on it, but they cannot be forced to do so, and even if they do, they may still attend and vote.
  7. What business do you have excluding voting members from the meeting?
  8. No. A chairman means one chairman. Co-anythings would have to be provided for in your bylaws, and in my view would be a grave mistake.
  9. That's rubbish. Special Rules of Order supersede RONR, as do the rules in your bylaws. But policies and procedures that violate your bylaws (which by inclusion means RONR as well), in fact any motions that conflict with the bylaws are null and void. And new rules cannot be created simply by breaking existing rules. Custom carries weight as long as it does not violate existing rules. But custom falls to the ground in the face of a written rule.
  10. Unless you have some provision in your bylaws to the contrary, members can vote the instant they become members.
  11. No. The fact that you've been doing something wrong for years does not make it right. The fact that you have nothing in your bylaws about it means that the rules in RONR apply, and RONR prohibits it. RONR prohibits e-mail meetings because they do not meet the requirements for a deliberative assembly, and the rules in RONR would be almost impossible to apply successfully. If you want to authorized them, you must explicitly do so in your bylaws, and probably pass special rules of order that apply to e-mail meetings. How, for example, does one request recognition? How do you hold a secret ballot? How can the chair call someone to order? Since a bylaws change would be necessary, whatever the vote and other requirements you have for changing your bylaws would then be the requirements for adding e-mail meetings. A majority vote certainly would not be enough.
  12. That's a 102 year old book you got there. But the rules on calling a committee meeting are still similar. The question on dissolving committees depends on whether it is a standing or special (select/ad hoc) committee. Standing committee membership (not just the chairmanship) ends when new officers are elected. Since this was a committee created in November, it would appear to be a special committee. But then how could it have had a chairman since 2012? Something is confusing here.
  13. No. If voters don't think it's a good idea, they will presumably not vote for both.
  14. Please post new questions as a new topic.
  15. Merci.