J. J.

Members
  • Content count

    2,601
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by J. J.

  1. Duplicate, see other post.
  2. There is nothing in RONR about size of a nominating committee, nor if the number of members should be odd or even. RONR strongly recommends that the president should not be a member.
  3. If the "assembly" is the board in this case, it would. If this is a committee is one of the board, the president would need the board's permission to add any one who is not a member of the board.
  4. Well, it would depend on the bylaws and on the committee. Assume the bylaws say the president has the ability to "appoint all committees (without any qualification)," and the bylaws say that the "the assembly shall appoint the Discipline Committee." I would not agree that the president could appoint the Discipline Committee.
  5. I do not agree that the statement is clear. It is ambiguous enough for me to raise that possibility. It is enough that, if I was talking to Clamdigger directly, I would be asking what this "matter" is. There are a few motions, or "matters," that cannot be reconsidered; to me. it looks like it could be a bylaw amendment. This "matter" may be a "plain vanilla main motion" that can be reconsidered. It may not be a "plain vanilla main motion," that cannot be considered. I don't know which. If clamdigger would like to add some details, I'd welcome it.
  6. Again agreeing. If the chair said, "If there is no objection, the revision is adopted," or something to that effect, this was adopted,
  7. I was looking the description, and I not sure if it is, of if it is Amend or Amend Something Previously Adopted (ASPA). Clambdigger's description is: " A matter is properly before the body for consideration. An amendment to the matter is made and passes. Later during the same meeting, a Motion for Reconsider the amendment that passed is made, receives a second and passes." Is that "matter" a main motion or is is this "matter" something that has been adopted? It it is ASPA, once that motion is adopted, it would not be subject to reconsider (p. 307, #8). If "matter" in this case is an original main motion, yes, the vote on the subsidiary motion to Amend could be reached by Reconsider; if it is a case of ASPA, that has been adopted, it cannot.
  8. If this is a committee of the board, I think the president would need the approval of the board (though I can see the other side). If it is a committee of the society as a whole, then the president could appoint the person who is a member of the society, but not on the board.
  9. I don't disagree at all. However, it has been my experience that want to challenge an action often cite a rule, the violation of which does not invalidate the action. In this case the secretary might be looking for some ground to challenge the adoption of the amendment, and chose the "there were no motions made" argument. It is not the first time I have heard this argument used(and yes I wrote something on it in the 1990's). The sole question that could invalidate the amendment is if a majority of the entire membership was not present. In some organizations, that would be a near impossibility, while in others it might occur at nearly every meeting.
  10. It would be completely improper, but we don't know if that is what happened.
  11. If no one objected, and a majority of the membership, yes, I'm sure. Even the person complaining seems to concede that an action was taken.
  12. That was my thinking. In this case, however, the vote was by unanimous consent. We don't really have to worry about it. I do, however agree with your answer. We still do not have DonB's answer.
  13. If your bylaws have no clause on amending the bylaws in the bylaws, you would need a two thirds vote, with previous notice or a vote of a majority of the entire membership. Was there a majority of the entire membership at the meeting?
  14. Assuming that RONR is your parliamentary authority, you would need a two thirds vote, with previous notice or a vote of a majority of the entire membership. Was the majority of the entire membership present at the meeting? Unanimous consent is not limited to "small items."
  15. The chair can require that it be written.
  16. Thanks, I missed that. Unless there is some problem with notice, these were properly adopted.
  17. I am assuming that this was not the annual meeting. Was this rule put in the bylaws? Is it just a motion. There could be some problems related to absentee rights, but, as Guest said, motions are not needed. The chair assumed the motion.
  18. Dr.

    Well, I can't come up with a motion to go out of executive session that would required a 2/3 vote. If there were a special rule that said, "All meetings shall be held in executive session," I could see a 2/3 needed to go into open session, but I think that would be a motion to suspend the rules.
  19. Dr.

    Well, if the motion "to go into executive session for the rest of the meeting" is adopted, it would have to be rescinded in order to come out of executive session. That was only thing I could see as an example. I'm trying to find an example that would need a 2/3 vote to leave executive session.
  20. Well, we don't know what the motion is. Further, "we" may know that, but clamdigger may not.
  21. Dr.

    A special rule of order is a different matter, at least potentially. I am, however, at a loss to see how a motion to go into executive session could be constructed to require more that a majority vote to come out of executive session, unless the rules were suspended. I could see a motion "That the assembly go into executive session and remain their until adjournment," but it might require a 2/3 vote.
  22. There is a case when it could; if the motion is to amend a constitution or bylaws, then it could not be reconsidered.
  23. 1. You can amend your constitution. 2. If the person is removed, can he be reappointed?
  24. Yes, or a committee dealing with disciplinary matters. That is why I indicated that context matters. Gary wrote: "Okay, it's perfectly logical. But it's still wrong." Transpower's explanation is not logical. We have two statements in the bylaw: S1. The President shall appoint all committees. S2. The members shall appoint the committee. Transpower said: " Rule 3 for bylaws interpretations, RONR (11th ed.), p. 589, states: 'A general statement or rule is always of less authority than a specific statement or rule and yields to it.' Therefore, I conclude that in your case the president has the power to appoint all committees. " I will add another point. RONR states, in Rule 4, that, "There is a presumption that nothing has been placed in the bylaws without some reason for it (pp. 590-91)." Is that conclusion correct? Transpower conclusion is that the president has the power to appoint all committees. That is consistent with the bylaw that says "The President shall appoint all committees. (S1.)" It is not consistent "The members shall appoint the committee.(S2.)" We must presume that S2 was placed in those bylaws for a purpose. Now, if Transpower's interpretation was correct, there would be no need for S2. S1 covers it. Therefore, Transpower's theory is not consistent with the rules of interpretation, Rule 4., to be specific. Now, is there an interpretation that can be consistent with S1 and S2? Well, if Rule 1 is the "general statement or rule," and that Rule 2. is the "specific statement or rule," them you get an answer that is consistent with Rule 3 and is consistent with Rule 4. QED. This argument is, in fact, the one that is more logical.
  25. Dr.

    I think that once an assembly goes into executive session, it has completely put the motion to go into executive session into effect. A motion to go out of executive session is a new motion. Usually both are adopted by unanimous consent.