Rev Ed

Members
  • Content count

    2,733
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Rev Ed

  • Birthday August 19

Profile Information

  • Location
    Toronto

Recent Profile Visitors

660 profile views
  1. At the end oif the day, you need to clarify 'justified cause' - but the first meeting is in the grey arey to me. The member was home and said he would come, but was absent. But the member just got home from a trip, which normally could count as a reason not to attend. I'd personally give the member the benefit on that one - the next to meetings are more clear from what you have told me. But this is up tho the Board to decide, not me.
  2. Simple, there were 7 directors. Now there are 6. 3 out of the 6 do not like the President. Of course, if they came out to meetings and voted against anything the President wanted to do, then there would be a deadlocked Board. So there is a benefit to attending. Several organizations that I know of have a clause in the By-laws stating that missing 3 or more meetings in one calendar year without cause (i.e. illness or work obligations) is sufficient for the Board to declare the position vacant. The Board, if it has the power to do so, could amend the By-laws - or ask the general membership - to amend the By-laws to allow for this.
  3. Based on the information provided, yes. If the President appoints the members and Chairmen of all Committees then the President can appoint himself/herself as a member, or as a Chairman, of any Committee. Any exceptions would have to be found in the By-law or motion giving the President the power to appoint members and Chairmen to Committees.
  4. Josh, we don't know the details. That's the problem. Is the OP using the term motion properly for example? And if so, what is the motion about? Normally, I'd agree with you 100%, but we don't have any details and I do not want to say that there is absolutely no issue when there may be - even if you or I would dismiss it, I would want to at least mention it. P.S. What I am trying to get at is if the spouse puts down a motion to do something that would benefit the couple or one of their relatives - or if what the OP means is that the spouse wants to run for office. In the former, the issue may be something where the assembly may wish to object to (i.e. why wouldn't the member want the vote to come out in favour of his/her relatives), and in the latter may constitute the same thing - the member may appear to be helping the spouse to get elected. While neither may be the case, the assembly may want to have someone else act as a scrutineer if for no other reason than for appearance - if there ends up being an issue with the final count that someone objects to (I have seen this occur) then the assembly may want to keep up the appearance of neutrality.
  5. Or better yet, take your copy of RONR (it sounds based on an earlier post that you have a copy of RONR) and ask her to show you the passage if she still claims what she is saying is true (I have the feeling based on other people who have had similar issues - i.e. people claiming things existed in RONR that do not exist - that some people will still claim things, so it helps to have 'the book' available for a "Then show me" response.
  6. The scrutineers would only help count votes in the event of a ballot vote, so unless a ballot vote is ordered by the assembly, or is required by the by-laws, then this would not be an issue. Can you provide more information as to why you are asking the question, please.
  7. A person who is not a member of the organization would have no rights of membership - including not being able to vote at all.
  8. You may need to consult a lawyer if you have listed the job on any job boards (including the Church's own website), but until that point, I would say yes the job description could be amended through a motion to amend something previously approved. However, once you agree to hire someone - or if the Church is in the actual process of hiring someone (i.e. advertising the job and accepting applications), then while RONR would still allow you to change the motion that approved the job description (you haven't actually hire anyone so the motion has in effect not been completed) but again this issue touches on employment so employment law may say something different and that is beyond scope of RONR, so beyond what we can advise on this forum.
  9. It all depends on the wording of the specific rule in question, plus who is empowered to enforce the rules. Some rules may have a 'Grandfather clause' contained in them. For example, the rules may read that a member who joined prior to January 1st, 2017 and who keeps their membership in good standing, may park their car for up to two weeks in the organization's parking lot. However members who join on or after January 1st, 2017 can only park their cars on the organization's property while using the organization's facilities. The Board cannot take action against a member who joined on December 31st, 2016 from leaving their car in a parking spot for two years, but may do so against a member who joined February 1st, 2017.
  10. Yes to any books that belong to the organization. So if the Secretary has the official binder with the official copies of the Minutes and/or any other documents, then yes he/she has to turn them back in. As for their own personal notes, or their own copies of documents, then no.
  11. Well, even the death of the IPP it could have issues with quorum. Even if the President dies in office, it could be argued that death made him the IPP - so how could he do the job of IPP now that he has died?
  12. Of coursenothing would stop the Board from forming the Committee and then appointing themselves as members of the Committee, unless the By-laws state some other method of appointing the Committee. On a side note, if the Committee does not existat the moment, then how is there a Chairman for the Committee?
  13. Better yet, just change the By-laws to stop having the Past President automatically be a member of the Board.
  14. Yes, thanks for the correction Richard. At the same time, I was trying to make a point that an election essentially has to be accepted but a nomination cannot be refused.
  15. There is no requirement for those nominated to accept a nomination to office - people may not have considered running but will end up accepting election once elected. It also allows members to provide an alternative to those who also nominated for office (there is no option to for no to any candidates - the only option is to vote for another person.) As such, no acceptance of nominations are required. However, anyone elected to office has to accept election (either by formally accepting election - i.e. "I would like to thank you for electing me" - or by not refusing election when notified)