Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Dan Honemann

Moderators
  • Posts

    10,188
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dan Honemann

  1. As best I can determine your board has no authority to take any disciplinary action against this officer, and has not attempted to do so. It would appear that any disciplinary action will have to be initiated by your membership.
  2. What, exactly, did you do earlier this year when you "tried to go through the process of the removal of the officer earlier this year and Board decided to keep her on". By what authority did you do this? Did the membership or the board elect this officer to the office which she holds? Do your bylaws give the board authority to remove her?
  3. As President of an organization whose bylaws state that that its proceedings are governed by Robert's Rules of Order, the first thing you need to do is read what is said in Chapter XX concerning disciplinary procedures. Having done that, if you have any further questions you should feel free to post them here.
  4. Suppose a resolution such as that found in 27:7 (“Resolved, That the Society congratulate its member Ernest Dunn on his novel Crestwood, and that three copies be purchased for the Society's library”) is adopted without amendment, and the organization's constitution prohibits purchase of any books other than scholarly treatises directly related to the purposes for which the Society was formed. If Mr. Dunn's novel clearly does not meet this standard, which it does not, I think a point of order could be raised and sustained voiding the decision to purchase copies of it without nullifying the Society's congratulations. I"m sure we are all agreed that additional facts from Guest Joe L would be helpful.
  5. As has been noted, your board has only such power as is delegated to it by your Constitution or by vote of the society's assembly referring individual matters to it. RONR (12th ed.) 49:5 If your organization has a board that has gone rouge, your organization's membership certainly has the power to rein it in if it desires to do so. 23:9 tells us that (emphases supplied): "If the executive board of a society takes action that exceeds the board's instructions or authority, that conflicts with a decision made by the assembly of the society, or that falls under any of the categories listed in 23:6, a point of order can be raised at a board meeting at any time during the continuance of the breach. If the point of order is sustained, the action must be declared null and void. Alternatively, the society's assembly can adopt an incidental main motion by majority vote declaring that the board's action is null and void; or, if it is affecting business at a meeting of the assembly, the board's action can be declared null and void by a ruling of the chair relating to the affected business or on a relevant point of order raised by a member. It is also possible for the assembly to bring disciplinary measures against the board members who voted for the improper action. If the assembly finds itself in sympathy with the board's action and the action is one that that assembly could have authorized in advance, the assembly can instead ratify the action as explained in 10:54–57."
  6. Yes, it can be, but whether it actually will be in order depends upon the particular facts . Can you elaborate a bit upon the situation you have in mind?
  7. But a resolution, once adopted, is no longer a resolution, it is something else. But aside from that, I would think that if a series of resolutions or motions is adopted by the adoption of a single main motion, such as described in 10:25 and 27:10, and one of them conflicts with the constitution, a point of order concerning its validity could be raised without affecting the others. Guest Joe L seems to be referring to a similar situation. Additional details would be helpful.
  8. One example of such a motion having been made occurred during one of NAP's conventions a number of years ago. Perhaps someone else who is familiar with this particular occasion will be willing to provide you with the details.
  9. Yes, a subordinate board may determine whether (and to what extent) it shall utilize the small board rules. What it may not do is create a special rule of order reducing the ten minute time limit for each speech imposed by RONR in 43:8, and any attempt to do so will be null and void (in this connection, see 23:9). As previously noted, however, the board is free, during any one of its sessions, to limit debate for the remainder of that session, or for any part thereof, or for any pending question, but a motion to do any of these things will require a two-thirds vote for its adoption (43:16-17). I suspect that what is of major significance to Guest ARDENT is the fact that his 3 member minority can prevent the adoption of any motion to limit debate such as those described in the immediately preceding paragraph, provided, of course, that they are present when the vote is taken and vote against it.
  10. I strongly disagree. I do not see how you can draw the inference that you do from what is said at the outset of 43:8, or how you came to the understanding that the "additional language at the start of this sentence was to provide latitude for subordinate boards to adopt a special rule of order limiting debate." It is somewhat informative to note that in 43:15, RONR says that "[t]he rule allowing each member two speeches of ten minutes' length per day on each debatable question can be made either more restrictive or more liberal for all meetings of a society by adopting a special rule of order by a two-thirds vote after notice, or by a vote of a majority of the entire membership (2:14ff.; see also 10:44–51)" whereas in 43:16 we are told that "[a]n assembly at any session can change the limits of debate, for that session only, by means of a main motion adopted by a two-thirds vote without notice." (Emphasis supplied.)
  11. The point is that this subordinate board does not have authority to adopt such a special rule of order unless the bylaws specifically say so (which I doubt).
  12. The correct name of this motion is Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes. I don't think that I would characterize this motion as having been "passed" when it has been properly moved and seconded. Making and seconding this motion simply means that it cannot be called up until another day. Yes, I've seen it used but I'm not about to expend the time and effort to describe it all. 😀
  13. You should announce (when appropriate) that motions and resolutions are "adopted" (or “agreed to” or “carried”). You should announce (when appropriate) that minutes are "approved". That's about it.
  14. Well, take heart. A two-thirds vote will be needed in order for your board to adopt any such rule limiting debate. Unless your bylaws expressly say otherwise, your board does not have the authority to adopt a special rule of order limiting debate because such a rule will conflict with a rule in the parliamentary authority adopted by your association (see 49:15 in that 12th ed. of yours). It can adopt such a rule to last for one of its current sessions only, or for any part thereof, or for any pending question, but a motion to do any of these things will require a two-thirds vote for its adoption (43:16-17).
  15. As far as the rules in RONR are concerned, the answer to your question is no, discussion should not appear in the minutes of a meeting.
  16. "To accomplish their work, voluntary societies that have an enrolled membership generally need a provision in their bylaws establishing a relatively small quorum—considerably less than a majority of all the members. In most such organizations, it is rarely possible to obtain the attendance of a majority of the membership at a meeting. Sometimes the specification of a quorum is based on a percentage of the membership; but such a method has the disadvantage of requiring recomputation and may lead to confusion—for example, when the secretary, or other officer who is in a position to certify as to the current number of members for purposes of the percentage calculation, is absent. There is no single number or percentage of members that will be equally suitable as a quorum in all societies. The quorum should be as large a number of members as can reasonably be depended on to be present at any meeting, except in very bad weather or other exceptionally unfavorable conditions." RONR (12th ed.) 40:3
  17. Well, I can't resist noting that the term "actionable item" appears nowhere in RONR, and it seems to be a rather unfortunate term to use in this connection. It appears to be inviting a lawsuit.
  18. Previous Question cannot be applied to an individual paragraph, period.
  19. No, I suppose not. Your suggested motion appears to be similar to the one described in 15:19(b).
  20. But how does this mesh with the rule that the motion to limit debate must first be applied to the immediately pending motion?
  21. I suppose it would be in order, while considering a particular paragraph, to move to suspend the rules that interfere with immediately ending debate on that paragraph, but I do not think the rules can be suspended to order a vote on it. I think this would violate the rule that only one motion can be considered at a time.
×
×
  • Create New...