Daniel H. Honemann

Members
  • Content count

    5,980
  • Joined

  • Last visited

3 Followers

About Daniel H. Honemann

  • Rank
    Fisherman
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Location
    Timonium, Maryland

Recent Profile Visitors

2,626 profile views
  1. This topic has been languishing for over a month, so just for the fun of it I'll suggest that there may be a problem with the first three suggested options. As I understand them, in each instance two different bylaw amendments will be proposed, with notice being given for each, and that while the first one of these two to be moved is pending a motion will be made to substitute the other one for it. If so, it appears that these options may run afoul of what is said on page 593, line 35 to page 594, line 10, as to the procedure to be followed in such instances.
  2. I think you need to read FAQ #10 again.
  3. You're painting with a very broad brush, but I think it's safe to say that the answer to all of these questions is "no", no further notice is required if the election to fill the resulting vacancy is held (or, at least, commenced) before the end of the session at which the election took place. This is because all members were on notice that an election would be held during this session to choose someone to fill the office involved.
  4. Surely you jest.
  5. Yes, your FAC may propose the adoption of a number of charter amendments in a single motion (RONR, 11th ed. p. 110, ll. 9-31), and depending upon the relationship of these proposed amendments to one another, this motion may or may not be divisible. If the proposed amendments are independent of one another, they will have to be divided upon the demand of just one member. If you are serving as parliamentarian, I suggest you read Section 27 in RONR (11th ed.) very carefully.
  6. Back to Parliamentary Law 101. When an assembly votes on a motion it is deciding whether it will or will not do what the motion proposes, and if an assembly rejects a motion it has decided not to do whatever it was that the motion proposed be done. RONR puts it this way (11th ed., p. 32, ll. 31-34): "If the assembly decides to do what a motion proposes, it adopts the motion, or the motion is carried; if the assembly expressly decides against doing what the motion proposes, the motion is lost, or rejected." I can assure you that RONR Official Interpretation 2006-12 remains correct in all material respects. It may be of interest to note, however, that back in the days of the 10th Edition, our task was to convince doubters that the phrase "any action taken" on page 466, line 8, meant "any decision made", and so in the 11th Edition reference is now made to "any decision made" instead of "any action taken" (p. 483, l. 7). Frankly, it never occurred to me that anyone would doubt that rejection of a motion is a decision made.
  7. Your problem seems to be with the fact that a tie vote defeats a motion. I'm afraid I can't help you with that.
  8. Have you looked at what is said in RONR (11th ed.) on pages 135-136 re degrees of amendment?
  9. Referring to the portion of this response which I have put in bold print, there should be no doubt but that defeating a motion constitutes a decision not to do what the motion proposes be done, and prevents a subordinate board from taking any action which alters or conflicts with that decision.
  10. Suppose we try to cut to the chase. The answer to the question initially asked is "yes". The sentence on page 581, lines 24-29 (RONR, 11th ed.) makes that abundantly clear. What I do not as yet understand is why Mr. Goldsworthy finds this so remarkable, or some sort of significant departure from what is said on pages 121-124 as to how previous notice can be given. If an assembly adopts a motion appointing a committee to draft a proposed revision of its bylaws and instructing it to report at a specified meeting, the assembly has given itself oral notice of its intent that such a motion be introduced at the designated meeting. It's as simple as that.
  11. Mr. Goldsworthy, I used the word "creating" instead of "appointing" in my response simply because "creating" is the word you had used when you said that "The act of creating a bylaw revision committee is itself the act of giving notice, per page 581", and I said no, it is not itself the act of giving notice. If it helps you to avoid missing the point, just substitute the word "appointing" for "creating" in my previous response. I believe that, if you think about it, you will agree that (as I said) the mere act of appointing a bylaws committee does not, in and of itself, constitute the act of giving notice of anything at all except the fact that a committee has been appointed. In order for such an appointment to constitute notice, the bylaws must require only previous notice of an amendment, with no limitation of the period within which it must be acted upon, and the committee which is appointed must be ordered by the assembly to report at a specified meeting. All three requirements are essential elements.
  12. Nonsense.
  13. Well, at least you're getting a wee bit closer to making some sense.
  14. Congratulations.
  15. Mr. Goldsworthy, nothing on page 581 (or anywhere else) indicates that the act of creating a bylaws committee in and of itself constitutes the act of giving notice of anything at all except the fact that a committee has been created. When you post things such as "When page 581 is exercised by an organization" and "actions invoking page 581", it becomes evident that you yourself have no idea as to exactly what you're referring to. As stated on page 581, if "the bylaws require only previous notice of an amendment without limitation of the period within which it must be acted upon, and a committee is appointed to revise the bylaws and report at a specified meeting, the appointing action is all the notice required". Every part of what is quoted is significant, and is essential to understanding what is being said.