Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

J. J.

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by J. J.

  1. Emergency

    The general members can fill the vacancies.
  2. The appointing power can generally remove the committee member. He need not be "barred." He could be removed as a committee member.
  3. Emergency

    Who elects the board members?
  4. Emergency

    What do the bylaws say about filing vacancies? What do they say is the quorum of the board.
  5. Adding to this, the vice president has a right to vote for himself for office (pp. 407-08). This is similar enough (and a duty of vice president) that the vice president is not in a "should abstain" position.
  6. It may be, and probably is, desirable, but it may not be immediate enough. The motion can properly be placed before the assembly, and disposed of, by the majority a bit easier than removal or suspension of the presiding officer. I will note two other possibilities: 1. As noted, the might be out of order on other grounds, and the majority may agree with those grounds. 2. The majority might agree that the motion is not dilatory, but might oppose the motion.
  7. Changing a Vote by Ballot

    Except to exempt a signed ballot, where the identity of the voter is known, I agree. Once the ballot is cast, there is no way to know how the person voted.
  8. "No motion is dilatory that the assembly chooses to entertains (no matter how dilatory it really is)." The assembly gets to make the decision, even if it has to appeal the decision of the the chair, and even when that appeal has to to out by a member from the floor. I would not rule the motion dilatory, nor would I oppose the appeal of the chair's decision that it was. This is something in the control the majority. The motion "That the XXXXXX Executive Committee requests the President of XXXXXXX respect the expressed wishes of Council and delegate XXX authority to chair the next council meeting to a parliamentarian or other appropriately qualified speaker," may, however, be out of order on other grounds.
  9. "No motion is dilatory that the assembly chooses to entertain (no matter how dilatory it really is)." Basically, it is ultimately up to the majority to determine if a motion is dilatory. If a member should appeal the decision of the chair, including putting the motion from the floor, and the majority agree to entertain the motion, the motion is properly before the assembly. By definition, that motion is not dilatory. The chair should, if he feels the motion is dilatory, rule it out of order as such, and prepare to have that decision appealed. He should not attempt to adjourn the meeting.
  10. I agree. I could see a situation where a motion that the vote be counted was defeated and the chair, on his own initiative, orders a count. The chair has be sure of the result, in his own mind.
  11. Fix time to which to adjourn

    The difference is that those limits to debate were actually adopted by the assembly. The rule that the privileged motion cannot be debated was not imposed by the assembly; it is a rule of order. It can clearly be suspended, if it is in force. For me, it is just a question whether or not the rules have to be suspended. I think you could have the same situation with Recess as well.
  12. Fix time to which to adjourn

    Page 242 (# 8) says it can be reconsiders. The privileged motion cannot be debated, but if the privileged FTTWTA is voted down, and an incidental main motion to FTTWTA, which would be debatable, could be made. I would note that the rules could be suspended the rules to debate the privileged motion. I would recommend that this be done first. I would suggest that the mover of reconsider, when making the motion, briefly explain that he will be offering a an incidental main motion to FTTWTA and that he is doing this so that there can be debate. I would rule the main motion out of order as dilatory without that explanation (and with no intervening business).
  13. Omitted motion in minutes

    Well, unless the assembly or some rule says that you must, you do not need to include the name of the seconder in the minutes.
  14. Annual Financial Reports

    See Chapter XX, disciplinary action, especially pp. 253-4.

    I this this is a bit unclear. You wrote: "the later amendment was PROPERLY adopted, should new minutes" 1. Is the "later amendment" the amendment to the contract? 2. Are the "new minutes" the minutes of a future meeting where the ratification takes place?
  16. The decision of the chair, when unchallenged is the expression of the assembly. It will have the same status as the decision was reached on appeal or if the assembly had adopted a motion to express that. I would not suggest disciplinary action, unless the action was a deliberate attempt to disenfranchise the member or group of members.
  17. In one, that does not apply to points of order raised before the announcement of the vote, even if the polls were closed. In terms of p. 252, the purpose of reballoting would be to protect the right to secrecy in voting, e.g. the vote is announced and member Jones raises a proper point of order that he was not permitted to vote. If he is permitted to vote, who he voted for, or if he abstained, it would be clear from the announcement; the vote for one candidate would go up, or the total is the same. Jones' right to secrecy in voting would be violated, though he may waive that right and cast his vote. If there was a sufficient number of people prevented improperly from voting that how they voted could not be determined, I would treat this as being a reopening of the polls.
  18. 1, I do not agree that, if raised when the vote was being taken in a meeting, or before or immediately after the announcement that it would invalidate the vote, unless it effected the result. At best, the members may be permitted to vote, even reopening the polls. 2. Something does happen; the assembly goes on record indicating that the members, or those of a similar status, could vote. 3. I said, " It is possible, in the first case, to discipline the member(s) and/or the officer(s) responsible." I did not say that a point of order was required to begin or impose discipline. You are reading entirely too much into that statement.
  19. Timekeeper

    As an aid to the chair, yes. It is effecting helping him with a duty to see that the rules of debate are enforced. The timekeeper could not stop person giving the report, but could inform the chair that the time has been exceeded. The timekeeper, as a member, could raise a point of order to that effect.
  20. I hope I have not said that the the result could be changed if the votes would not effect the result. 1. The point of order just relating to if those 8 people could or could not could be raised, and the point of order may be well taken. 2. A point of order that this election is invalid because of this (assuming the first point was well taken), is clearly not well taken. It is possible, in the first case, to discipline the member(s) and/or the officer(s) responsible. It usually doesn't in the case of an honest mistake, but it is possible. If a member did something outside of the meeting, start a riot at a restaurant, for example, he could be expelled because his actions reflect badly on the society. If he is expelled, that will not change what happened at the restaurant.
  21. It does on pp. 248, ll. 24-33, and p. 256, #1 if you are referring to a motion to Commit. I do think p. 252 specifically says that a point of order regarding the denial of the right to vote can be raised at any time.
  22. On that point, I disagree. If a member or members were disenfranchised, even if it does not effect the result of any vote, it still creates a breach of a continuing nature. The remedy is usually a statement that the members were improperly deprived of the right to vote, and possibly disciplinary action against the party or parties that caused the disenfranchisement. In regard to the committee, the chair could make a ruling, make sure his ruling is appealed, and refer the appeal to a committee. He could also submit the question to the assembly where it could be referred to a committee.
  23. A good thought, but I thing a point of order would be timely based on p. 252, ll. 19-30. I say it is a good thought, because I was looking at that possibility as well.
  24. It might be advisable to refer the matter to a committee, in that case. Looking at it, I'm not sure it could be referred without suspending the rules.
  25. Depending on your rules, you might actually word the motion "that the board authorize the ______ report to be publicly released."