Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Dan Honemann

Moderators
  • Posts

    10,185
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dan Honemann

  1. As I have previously noted, in my opinion Table II, Motion 3 is in error in this respect. 21:3 tells us that when a time for adjourning has already been established, a motion to adjourn is treated just as any other incidental main motion, and 10:8(7)(c) tells us that a two-thirds vote is required for the adoption of such a motion since it has the effect of changing something already adopted. 21:14 seems rather clearly to relate only to a motion to adjourn which is made during a meeting when another meeting has previously been scheduled for the same session.
  2. Won't this depend upon what the item of business is? What if it's a standing committee report?
  3. Since you say that this happened a couple of years ago, it's obviously rather late to be discussing it now. But for purposes of discussion, tell us what the bylaws say about officers terms in office and about filling vacancies in office.
  4. No it doesn't. Only the chair, at a regular or properly called meeting, can announce the result of a vote, and until such time as this occurs, the result of the vote has yet to be determined.
  5. Assuming that the investigation to which you refer is being conducted in accordance with your rules regarding disciplinary proceedings, it would appear that what can be done is being done.
  6. Yes, the minutes should state that the motion to amend the bylaws, after debate and amendment, was adopted as follows, stating exactly what was finally adopted.
  7. If you are allowing absentee members to participate in your meetings in this fashion it must be because your bylaws specifically allow it, and in this case it is incumbent upon your organization to adopt rules to govern the situation you describe.
  8. The first officers elected are a chairman pro tem and a secretary pro tem to serve until bylaws have been prepared and adopted. Following the adoption of bylaws and the enrollment of members, an election is then held to elect the officers prescribed in the bylaws. For details, see Section 54 in RONR, 12th ed.
  9. The fact is that what you are doing seems to make no sense, and this may be because I don't think that anyone here really understands what you are doing and why.
  10. It appears that the motion to amend the bylaws was amended during its consideration, and then adopted as amended.
  11. I don't know what factual situation Guest mario has in mind. Perhaps he is asking what changes, if any, can be moved while the proposed bylaw amendments are pending for adoption.
  12. And you are to be congratulated and admired for doing so. Please feel free to visit here whenever you encounter something in RONR that you find at all difficult to understand.
  13. If your bylaws say that RONR In Brief is your parliamentary authority, then, as stated on page 7 of that book, the current edition of RONR is actually your parliamentary authority. To change to another will require a bylaw amendment. I doubt that the Zimmerman book is suitable for use as a parliamentary authority either. In any event, it really isn't a good idea to try to name two manuals as your authority.
  14. I'm afraid that the only way to provide an answer to your question as to the validity of your board's appointment of a director to fill the vacancy you have referred to will require a review of all of your governing documents (charter, bylaws, applicable law), all of which supersede Robert's Rules). You say that your board and staff "manage all aspects" of your annual member meetings, but I sincerely doubt that your governing documents actually give them the power and authority to do so. Whether they do or don't, however, it would appear to me that the board did in fact have the authority to make this appointment. Either it was done in accordance with your governing documents or your membership was itself at fault in failing to take the action it should have taken at your annual meeting, leaving the vacancy for your board to fill. But since I haven't read your governing documents, my take on this isn't worth much.
  15. The answer to this question is going to be found in your club's bylaws. What do they say about "emeritus members"?
  16. You say that, at the regular meeting of the membership following the occurrence of the vacancy, "the board 'misinterpreted' the bylaw and did not run the seat in the election." It would seem that it was the membership that made a mistake, since it was the membership that then had a duty to fill the vacancy. Does your membership allow your board to have some sort of control over membership meetings? Was there some reason why your membership had no knowledge of the existence of this vacancy? If I understand the facts correctly, no mention of the existence of this vacancy was made at the membership meeting, and no effort was made to fill it. If this is so, the vacancy continued to exist following adjournment of that meeting, and I see no reason why the board may not fill that vacancy until such time as the membership fulfills its duty to do so.
  17. What the FAQ says is that "if the rules explicitly require a majority or two thirds of the members present .... an abstention will have the same effect as a “no” vote" (emphasis supplied). You say that your council's rules provide that "a majority vote of those present shall be necessary for affirmative or negative action by the Council." By my standards, this does not at all explicitly require the vote of a majority of the members present. Instead, it can easily be interpreted to require a majority vote. As Mr. Martin has indicated, this is a question that should be addressed to your city’s clerks and attorneys. Presumably this ambiguity has been definitively resolved quite some time ago.
  18. So we differ on what does or does not constitute a "particular size" within the meaning of 25:2(7). Life goes on.
  19. The difficulty stems from the fact that you, Tomm, obviously do not spend anywhere near the time needed to think about any of the responses you receive, particularly the very detailed ones you receive from Mr. Martin, and to carefully review the portions of RONR cited in those responses, before posting again. My suggestion to those now responding is to resist posting again until at least 24 hours have expired since the last response. Hopefully this will encourage a bit more work on Tomm's part.
  20. What I am looking for is a reference or link to the thread.
  21. Can you let us know exactly where you were told this so that we can put it in context?
  22. Can a subordinate board adopt a special rule such as this?
  23. The statements I have bolded appear to be inconsistent, and in the statement I have bolded I do not know what you mean by "a tradition of Committee of the whole".
×
×
  • Create New...