Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

alanh49

Members
  • Posts

    216
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About alanh49

  • Birthday 06/22/1949

Profile Information

  • Location:
    Michigan

Recent Profile Visitors

630 profile views

alanh49's Achievements

  1. I was going to cite RONR 12th ed. 45:36 to prove my point. But then I read RONR 12th ed. 46:33 which proves your point So I'll concede that that I was wrong.
  2. If (A) (B) & (C) are all running for 3 different positions. They are not running against each other. This means they all got a majority of the votes cast for that office or position and were elected. (A) by a vote of 25 to 0, (B) by a vote of 21 to 0, and (C) by a vote of 10 to 0. There was no need to take a separate vote on (C)
  3. As long as a quorum is still present when the vote is taken it doesn't matter who or how or how many have left.
  4. Well, if they win, that is one thing, but if not, it's not going to be much of a defense that RONR now says it was ok to make and adopt a motion to do something illegal
  5. Well, since no one made a point of order that there was already a motion on the floor when the second motion was made, I think it replaced the first motion. I would also note that the second motion does the first motion was trying to do name the chair.
  6. Well, I never thought of the old rule, the one that said a motion that conflicts with state or federal law is null and void, as so much a rule but more a statement of fact. A Motion of that kind may not be out of order now, but I still think they are void if adopted.
  7. But two thirds is more than half so it is a majority. It is a majority of a certain size. The two terms are not contradictory but adding majority after two thirds is pointless and should not be done.
  8. I agree with what is written above. But how does putting on an agenda [that is sent to all members before the meeting] that a motion will be made to amend or rescind the rule on mask not count as giving notice in the call of the meeting? I think they should rescind the present rule on mask and adopt a new one this can be done in one motion.
  9. Do the bylaws say they hold office until their successors are elected? Because if does not their term will end in February
  10. What about ratification by bylaw amendment? In other words what if the bylaws were amended by adding something like the following: Electronics meetings may be or have been held and the validity of any such meeting shall not be questioned merely because it was an electronics meetings.
  11. I would note that well the Nominating Committee cannot nominate one of its own a members of the Nominating Committee can be nominated by petition. So they can run for office but when it comes to filling a vacancy only the Nominating Committee can do it and because the bylaws do not say that the Nominating Committee cannot appoint one of its own to fill the vacancy I think it can.
  12. Well in this case since it says it is a 3-year term I think 2016-2018 means to the end of 2018 and not the beginning of 2018
  13. Well, no because we don't know why the OP thought the amendment was out of order and there are cases in which the timeliest rule would not apply. I was thinking of those cases in which it did apply. Well, no because we don't know why the OP thought the amendment was out of order and there are cases in which the timeliest rule would not apply. I was thinking of those cases in which it did apply.
  14. But, if you need a majority of the members present to adopt the motion an abstention will have the same effect as voting no
×
×
  • Create New...