Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

J. J.

Members
  • Posts

    5,501
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by J. J.

  1. For background see: United States v. Ballin, et al., 144 U.S. 1 (1892) Evan, William J., “Is Parliamentary Law ‘Law’,” National Parliamentarian, 42 (1981), no. 1, 7-9.
  2. I do agree that it would be an administrative rule, and require notice, but I do also agree that it is not crystal clear. Ironically, if this had been referred to a committee, I would have been more likely to say that it was in order without notice.
  3. I think it was a requirement to distribute them to the members. Sorry for being so obtuse.
  4. How minutes are distributed, e.g. posted on a website or sent via postal mail, and when they are distributed are administrative in nature. What goes in the minutes and how they are approved is procedural, but that is not the question. Looking at the how and when of approval of the minutes, those might be a standing rule.
  5. Just to be clear, I list the adoption of a special rule as an option, not necessarily a suggestion.
  6. This, to me, would be an instruction to an officer to do something outside of a meeting, not a delegation to a committee. Suppose that at this special convention there was a fundraiser, during the meeting. It received proper noticed. Would a motion ordering the treasurer to open a separate account at a new bank, and deposit the fundraising money in the new account be in order? I would say no, because the motion was not noticed. I will agree that it is close, but because it is an order to an officer, and could not be a adopted as a special rule, I have to come down on the "no" side. Ironically, I may not have that problem with the convention appointing a committee to approve and distribute the minutes.
  7. I would say "no" for this reason. Instructing the secretary to do something outside of a meeting does not arise in connection with the transaction of business of the meeting. It deals with the duty of the secretary outside of the meeting. You may wish to look at this thread: https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/43381-convention-rules-at-a-special-convention/
  8. Two things to note: 1. You may adopt a rule that supersedes RONR on this point and permit the parliamentarian to enter into debate. 2. The chair may permit members knowledgeable on parliamentary procedure to speak on a point of order (23:2 5).
  9. I think you just, effectively, developed such an IMM. That is a compliment, BTW. As I said, I would rule your initial motion out of order if the intent was not to rescind. I would treat the first one as possibly a 23:6 b violation.
  10. Unless the body can compel attendance, the member can leave at any point. Under RONR, an absence is an absence. You question regarding a public body is likely one of statute and you should look there.
  11. Words do mean something, and if you are asking for the assembly to rule something out of order and void, you have to use the word "rule" or something close to it. That said, I think you have demonstrated how a point of order could be raised as an incidental main motion.
  12. Notice protects absentee rights, in general. I would permit unnoticed items to be considered if there were no absentees. That said, if this a local government, there is almost certainly is statute covering this. That would supersede RONR.
  13. I am seeing enough of a distinction, in the phrasing of the motion. Much may be said in debate that may not be accurate and would not, properly, be recorded. If you were attempting to have the assembly adopt the motion, "I move that the rule adopted on February 1, 2024, requiring applicants for membership to pay an initiation fee of $50.00 be declared null and void," and the intent was to declare some action void because it violated the bylaws, I would rule the motion out of order because of vagueness. I would suggest something like, "I move that the assembly rules that the rule adopted on February 1, 2024, requiring applicants for membership to pay an initiation fee of $50.00, be null and void, as it violates (citation) of the bylaws." Very clearly, the assembly can rule on this.
  14. An amendment that makes the adoption of a question equivalent to rejecting it is out of order (12:22 2), but that applies to any form of amendment, note merely substitution.
  15. No, I would have a problem if someone claimed this was actually a motion to rescind (and required a higher vote threshold). Even this motion, as worded, could be a back door method to rescind that motion of 2/1/24 by less than the vote threshold required. (I would note that if some form of a point of order could be raised as an incidental main motion, that would address this.)
  16. I agree, but I am asking why (or how) you would distinguish been a R/ASPA and a Point of Order.
  17. And how would that not fall under the rules for rescind/amend something previously adopted? 6:23 does not cover it specifically.
  18. No, though they possibly could move to rescind it at the next meeting.
  19. J. J.

    Nominations

    Yes, and no. A nomination could be ruled out of order because the mover is no a member, but only at the time of the nomination. If the point of order was not make at the time, it is too late to raise it (23:6).
  20. J. J.

    Nominations

    The rule requiring that only members can make motion, even suggestions, could be suspended. If a nomination was made by someone not entitled to vote, and there was no timely point of order, the nomination itself could not be challenged at a later point on that ground.
  21. I said sharing it does not violate executive session. A claim could be made that distributing this material disturbs the well-being of the society and charge the member with that (63:24).
  22. Nothing in RONR would prevent it. A separate set of minutes would be created for the executive session. They would be approved in executive session.
×
×
  • Create New...