Josh Martin

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Josh Martin

  1. mr

    It could be either. A parliamentary inquiry is a question about parliamentary procedure, while a Point of Order is a statement that a rule has been violated, which forces the chair to rule on the point. So a member might ask, "Mr. Chairman, is the member's amendment germane to the resolution?" This would be in the nature of a parliamentary inquiry. On the other hand, the member might say, "Point of Order! The member's amendment is not germane to the resolution." This would be in the nature of a Point of Order.
  2. So far as RONR is concerned, the only members who count toward the quorum are members who are actually present. If your organization's rules provide otherwise, it is up to your organization to interpret those rules.
  3. It is in order for the board to do this.
  4. What kind of meeting are you talking about? If you have a board which consists of these five officers (and no one else), then three of them need to be present for a quorum. Even without a quorum, you can still have an official meeting, you just can't conduct any business. On the other hand, if you're talking about a meeting of the membership, you don't need any of the officers to be present. So long as there is a quorum, a meeting could be held and business conducted even if all of the officers were absent. The society could elect a Chairman Pro Tempore and a Secretary Pro Tempore and hold the meeting.
  5. It's your organization that is making a sham of this, not Robert's Rules. As has been stated several times, RONR's position is that the minutes should simply say that the motion was adopted.
  6. It seems extremely unlikely that the bylaws (or applicable law) grant a single individual the authority to create additional qualifications for office.
  7. Do you mean to say that they use plurality voting? Preferential voting is "ranked voting." A majority vote is still required. Well, apparently they have not adopted RONR or any parliamentary authority so they can do things like use plurality voting for the election of officers with simply a custom.
  8. It is certainly correct that, in the long term, the bylaws should be amended to remove the ambiguity, but until that occurs, the board (and ultimately, the membership) must interpret the provision as best as it can. It is not proper to simply ignore the bylaws because they are unclear. If it is correct that the bylaws require an election by the membership to fill the vacancy, then that is what must occur, and the board's election is null and void.
  9. If the motion is, in fact, contrary to the board bylaws, then it is null and void.
  10. It strains belief that the bylaws are "entirely silent" regarding the powers of the board, but in such a case, all motions adopted by the membership are fully binding upon the board, and the board has no authority to do anything without direction from the membership, unless something in a higher-level rule (such as applicable law) provides otherwise. The bylaws will generally say something about the powers of the board, however vague that statement might be. RONR does say that in stock corporations, the board is the supreme authority, and the membership just gets the powers the bylaws assign them. Motions adopted by the members would just be recommendations. For all other organizations, the situation is reversed - the membership is the supreme authority, and the board only has such powers as the bylaws assign to it. The fact that the assembly and the board are "creatures of legislation" doesn't change anything so far as RONR is concerned, but the legislation in question may have its own rules on the subject, and such rules would take precedence.
  11. I think it is correct that simply notifying members that a general revision to the bylaws shall be proposed is not sufficient notice, but it may still be possible to act upon the proposed revision at the February meeting. The bylaws committee, after completing its work, could ask the Secretary to include the required notice in the call of the meeting.
  12. A member could give notice that he intends to make the motion anew, provided that the original motion is withdrawn.
  13. An incomplete election can result in a vacancy. A vacancy is whenever there is no one in an office. Depending on how the bylaws are worded, an incomplete election may have that effect. Nonetheless, I agree that there is no contradiction. The assembly is not beginning a new election, it is completing an election which has already begun, and for which there is already some form of notice - either notice to fill a vacancy or the fact that the bylaws specify when the regular elections shall be held. In much the same way, the fact that notice is required for a special meeting does not mean notice is required for an adjourned meeting, and the fact that previous notice is required for certain motions does not mean notice must be given again if that motion is postponed.
  14. At least so far as RONR is concerned, I do not think it is proper to open nominations from the floor at a board meeting when the election is conducted by the general membership. It would be proper to take such nominations from the floor at a meeting of the general membership, if such a meeting takes place prior to the vote. With that said, it appears that the organization's rules require the nominating committee to submit its nominations to the board before mailing them to the members. There is presumably some reason for this requirement, and that reason might be to permit the board members to make additional nominations. This is, however, a question of interpreting your organization's rules, which is up to your organization.
  15. I don't understand how absentee votes came into this. Neither of the proposed wordings would permit absentee votes. That would need to be specifically stated in the bylaws. I also don't see how absentee votes would help anything. What you really seem to be getting at is that the proposed wordings would mean that blank ballots could be used to prevent an election, and this is correct. In the event that no candidate is elected, however, another round of voting is immediately held, so this doesn't really accomplish anything except making your elections take longer. Ultimately, if you want to prevent this person from being elected, you should elect someone else. If you need to stall for time to find candidates, a member may move to postpone the election. Majority rules. If you are unable to find any candidates and still insist on refusing to elect this person, you've apparently decided it doesn't really matter if this position is filled, so perhaps you should consider amending the bylaws to eliminate the position. That would solve the problem.
  16. Elect someone else as Treasurer. The Executive Committee (which appears to serve as your organization's nominating committee) should meet again to find a new nominee for Treasurer. Additionally, nominations from the floor and write-in votes are in order.
  17. The assembly may certainly prohibit non-members from attending. If by "members in good standing" you mean members whose rights are not under disciplinary suspension, then yes, members who are not "in good standing" may also be prohibited from attending. If you mean something else by "members in good standing," please clarify.
  18. The reporting member of the committee may make a motion to implement the committee's recommendations.
  19. 1-2). A motion to dissolve has the same requirements as a motion to amend the bylaws. 3.) Yes. The motion to dissolve generally includes details such as how the society's assets will be disposed of, and such details may be amended.
  20. The organization's bylaws are the highest authority in the society. They take precedence over any conflicting rules in the parliamentary authority, and there are no restrictions on what rules the society may adopt, except as may be imposed upon the society by a parent society or applicable law. As a result, if the society wishes to provide that a certain section of its bylaws may not be suspended or amended, it seems to me that the society is free to do so. If the society later wishes to amend the bylaws to remove the provision, it will be unable to do so, and for this reason, I do not advise that a society adopt a provision of this nature, which I stated at the outset. A more reasonable compromise would be to require a higher threshold to amend the rule in question. I don't think the society can get around the rule by adopting a revision which omits the provision. The only solution I can see would be to dissolve the society and start over from scratch.
  21. I think it could be done, but it is not advisable. The society might wish for a higher threshold to amend particular provisions, but to make it so that a provision cannot be amended at all seems unwise. I disagree. The provision can quite easily be written in such a way that prevents this. The rule could be placed in its own section, and it could include a statement which provides that no part of that section could be amended. I don't advise this, but it seems to me that it could be done.
  22. Because the same object may be achieved by simply voting the amendment down, which makes this dilatory. If a member moves to amend the main motion, and that amendment is defeated, the question is on the main motion.
  23. What problem? A vote of 2-0 passes, so far as RONR is concerned. (See FAQ #6.) Does your board have its own rules on this subject?
  24. It is not correct. If candidates 1, 2, 3, and 4 are tied for the lowest position, they remain on the ballot, and so do all of the other candidates. This is the case whether or not they have a majority of the votes cast.
  25. I think "do whatever they want" goes a bit far, but back to your original question, but it seems fairly clear to me that the board's authority to manage the club is sufficiently broad for it to adopt these "ground rules" and to amend ground rules that it adopted, provided that they do not conflict with rules adopted by the society. (It is, of course, ultimately up to the society to interpret its own bylaws.)