Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Steven Britton

Members
  • Posts

    592
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Steven Britton

  • Birthday 02/03/1956

Profile Information

  • Location:
    Montrose, Michigan 48457
  • Interests
    Professional Registered Parliamentarian. Second vice-president of the Michigan Association of NAP, president of the Michigan Unit of Registered Parliamentarians and treasure of the Genesee Area Unit of Parliamentarians My interest in the subject corresponds to my family's participation in the sport of pure-bred dogs.

Recent Profile Visitors

1,394 profile views

Steven Britton's Achievements

  1. Guest Charlene: IMO, Mr. Katz has given you an excellent answer if the Current Edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised controls the situation. However, you've posted this question relative to a school board, which further suggests you are possibly describing a situation relative to a public governmental body. If I am correct, the answer to this question may occur outside of RONR , that is, in you your local jurisdiction's Public Open Meetings Laws (sometimes called Sunshine Laws). IMO, you should also pose this question to your school board's attorney for his/her input.
  2. Specificly, your example descrbes a device referencing a "consent calendar," which generally may be applied to "routine or noncontrolversial" business items. Sometimes, multiple items are listed on the Consent Calendar and adopted as you described. See 41:32 for details.
  3. In meetings that I've chaired it is advisable to adopt Meeting Standing Rules at the begining of the meeting and to a rule concerning the use of the chat. Concerning members abusing the chat, the main concern that I see are when members at the meeting attempt to carry on debate or other conversations in the chat. The chat function may be vital to process motions that interupt, or the processing of long worded motions. As such, I would not advise a group eliminate it. However, in a association meeting I chaired last spring, after a member exhausted her/his two turns to speak in debate, s/he attempted to continue debating (that is, take a third turn) in the chat. As chair, at my first opportunity without interupting a speaker, I reminded the assembly that all debate needed to be addressed through receiving the chair's recognition, and further, if the member has exhausted his/her turns to address the assembly, the assembly itself needed to authorize her/his continued debate. There were no other incidents of members abusing the chat function at this meeting.
  4. In addition to Mr. Brown's excellent answer if RONR controls, consult with a lawyer about your jurisdiction's non-profit statutes regarding the effective date of resignations. If the non-profit laws in your state or jurisdiction are differnt from RONR, the laws may interceed.
  5. Our church is incorporated in a state that requires in-person meetings unless electronic means are established in our bylaws, which bylaws are silent on such and require we follow the latest edition of Roberts Rules secondarily. Do you have a parliamentary question? Your preface is framing a legal question. You may consider asking a lawyer whether your state is under an executive order that allows you to do meet by electronic means.
  6. Question for the OP: What type of organization is this?
  7. My concern is with the length of the period that defines the majority of meetings is undefined by the information provided. If the definition of a majority is more than half, half of what? Hence, if one of Gov. Cuomo's executive order nullifies this bylaw, there is no restriction from meeting electronically. Again, you need to speak with a lawyer and not a parliamentarian regarding applicability of the New York governor's executive order.
  8. Strictly, speaking, the citation you've provided only provides for regular meetings to be held by electronic means, and a majority of the regular meetings are required to be held in person. However, you should contact a lawyer to review and interpret Governor Cuomo's various Executive Orders to determine how they apply to your particular non-profit organization. My only question is what did your organization intend by stating a majority of meetings (majority of what)?
  9. Tim Wynn, PRP, gave an excellent presentation at the NAP Leadership Conference, which in-part, explained the section/paragraph number citation.
  10. In state statute, many states restrict voting by email by providing for taking action outside of a meeting through Unanimous Written Consent. You should contact a lawyer whether email voting is permitted in your jurisdiction.
  11. If RONR controls, if draft minutes are circulated to board members prior to the meeting where they will be approved, yes, the director is permitted to see the draft minutes. However, RONR does not require the circulation of draft minutes prior to their approval. If the minutes are not circulated prior to a meeting amongst members of the board, RONR requires there reading prior to approval.
  12. Generally, depending on the nature of the business transacted, the motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted may be applied in many of situations. However, there are exceptions to the general rule. As an example, rescinding or amending bylaws would be subject to the same procedures and notice requirements necessary to adopt a bylaw amendment, and rescinding contracts may be problematic or ill-advised.
  13. RONR, pp. 251 - 252: PRECEDENT. The minutes include the reasons given by the chair for his or her ruling (see p. 470, ll. 15–17). The ruling and its rationale serve as a precedent for future reference by the chair and the assembly, unless overturned on appeal, the result of which is also recorded in the minutes and may create a contrary precedent. When similar issues arise in the future, such precedents are persuasive in resolving them—that is, they carry weight in the absence of overriding reasons for following a different course—but they are not binding on the chair or the assembly. The weight given to precedent increases with the number of times the same or similar rulings have been repeated and with the length of time during which the assembly has consistently adhered to them. If an assembly is or becomes dissatisfied with a precedent, it may be overruled, in whole or in part, by a later ruling of the chair or a decision of the assembly in an appeal in a similar situation, which will then create a new precedent. Alternatively, adoption, rescission, or amendment of a bylaw provision, special rule of order, standing rule, or other motion may alter the rule or policy on which the unsatisfactory precedent was based.
  14. Perhaps, but if the order is subject to variation determined by the practice of the organization, it could easily be permitted by precedence (pp. 251 - 252), or custom, which could ultimately lead to the final decision by the assembly, but not necessarily the immediate decision. In a contentious assembly, Its perhaps a better solution for the moderator to allow for this sort of item with a time limitation (maybe 3 minutes), and to provide for limited rebuttal if necessary.
  15. Except that: RONR, 11th Edition, pp. 362 - 363 states: After the completion of new business—that is, when no one claims the floor to make a motion in response to the chair's query, "Is there any further new business?"—the chair may proceed to one or more of the following headings, in an order that may be subject to variation determined by the practice of the organization. Good of the Order, General Good and Welfare, or Open Forum. This heading, included by some types of societies in their order of business, refers to the general welfare of the organization, and may vary in character. Under this heading (in contrast to the general parliamentary rule that allows discussion only with reference to a pending motion), members who obtain the floor commonly are permitted to offer informal observations regarding the work of the organization, the public reputation of the society or its membership, or the like. Certain types of announcements may tend to fall here. Although the Good of the Order often involves no business or motions, the practice of some organizations would place motions or resolutions relating to formal disciplinary procedures for offenses outside a meeting at this point. In some organizations, the program (see below) is looked upon as a part of the Good of the Order. It would not be out of order for a member to offer an amendment to the meeting's agenda at the beginning of the meeting, which provides for Good of the Order or Open Forum to the order of the meeting's business.
×
×
  • Create New...