Shmuel Gerber

Administrators
  • Content count

    2,026
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Shmuel Gerber

  • Rank
    @ShmuelGerber on Twitter

Profile Information

  • Location
    : Brooklyn, NY
  1. Well, if the provision is indeed applicable to those who have already been serving in office for a period of time, then it would seem that whoever is elected president and already holds another office is sunk either way -- he will have to abandon one office or the other, thereby becoming ineligible for both.
  2. By that standard, all rules relating to the election of officers could be suspended, which is obviously not the case. A rule that makes a candidate ineligible for election by write-in is not merely a rule of order, although it might not be very effective in substance unless combined with a limitation on the ability to reopen nominations.
  3. How do you figure that a bylaw provision making votes for certain candidates illegal is in the nature of a rule of order -- that it is among those rules that "relate to the orderly transaction of business in meetings and to the duties of officers in that connection" (RONR, 11th ed., p. 15, ll. 9-11)?
  4. OK, but there are still some more questions here. If they resign to “do the right thing”, are they “refusing to serve”? We obviously don't want them to be penalized in any way, especially being barred from holding another office going forward. We can't tell you what "refusing to serve" means in the context of your own bylaws, but why are you concerned only about the current president's resignation triggering this clause, but not the fact that the president-elect is abandoning his current office, which would mean he is ineligible to serve as president?
  5. Why will the current office held by these candidates be vacant instead of being filled by the same election that elects the president? Does that term of office not coincide with the term of office for president? And in any event, unless the bylaws provide that no person may hold two offices simultaneously, election to another office would not create a vacancy in the existing office unless the person submits a resignation (from the first office) to the appropriate body and the resignation is accepted.
  6. Or maybe it was the used dictionary salesman.
  7. The reason to want it dead before it comes off the table is to prevent *further* debate on the matter. That's not necessarily the same thing as killing the motion without debate.
  8. If the assembly members have voted to lay the motion on the table, it's not much of a stretch to suppose they might want it dead. And who said there was no debate on it already?
  9. At that point, the motion to Suspend the Rules could validly be adopted. I can't say it would be "the best" motion, but see http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_20 for a somewhat similar scenario and possible wording.
  10. The motion to Suspend the Rules would still not be in order at that point, as the chair first has to state the question on the motion to Take from the Table.
  11. A motion to Suspend the Rules is out of order when another has the floor.
  12. Obviously you're joking, but the wording is perfectly logical. The following colloquy would be absurd: A: Are there any Honemanns here? B: No, it's just the one Dan.
  13. I could start a new subforum called "Gary's Rules of Chaos," but I won't.
  14. Maybe the RONR authorship team felt that having a rule providing for the omission of a proper tellers' report is such a dumb idea that it would be pointless to mention the type of rule needed to accomplish it.
  15. I don't think the specific rights of the members has anything to do with it. The question is whether the bylaws have been complied with. A requirement of a "ballot vote" has a very specific meaning; it doesn't just mean that ballots were employed in the vote somehow or another.