Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Shmuel Gerber

Administrators
  • Posts

    4,475
  • Joined

Everything posted by Shmuel Gerber

  1. Robert's Rules of Order says nothing about this.
  2. It's not listed in the index, but RONR does mention semicolons with regard to the Object article in the bylaws, in paragraph 56:18 of the 12th edition.
  3. I think the train of the topic has left the rails, if indeed there ever were any.
  4. You say there will be no applicable bylaws, but then you talk about the current bylaws. From your descriptions it seems that this organization already exists, but according to RONR, it is the adoption of bylaws that creates the organization. Without further details I don't see how we can help figure out what vote is required to adopt new bylaws.
  5. I'm sorry, but this sounds like mumbo-jumbo to me. Are there bylaws in place or not, and if so what do they say about their amendment?
  6. See RONR (12th ed.) 56:15. If the text has been distributed to the members in advance, the committee chair can move its adoption without reading it. See 4:5.
  7. Repairing your mistakes in the most humorous way possible would be a close contender, IMO.
  8. I would say it is written as a separate provision, but obviously the first provision must be fulfilled as well: "Proposed amendments to the bylaws not mailed to the State Executive Committee thirty days prior to the convening of the State Convention shall not be considered in order unless the propounder of the proposed amendment shall have first furnished a minimum of one thousand (1000) copies of the proposed amendment, and it [the proposed amendment so furnished] must receive a two-thirds vote of the Delegates present and voting at any State Convention [to be approved]." The structure is almost identical to the other provision requiring printed copies, which specifically says "to be approved".
  9. Right. If members decide to do something on their own when they have no valid power to act for the organization, they are responsible for what they've done. Although in most cases, I'm not so sure that the primary risk isn't borne by those who actually carry out the decision. But maybe that is a legal question rather than a parliamentary one. 🙂
  10. No kvetching, no hissing, no spitting (p. xxxiv). Are parliamentarians just a bunch of killjoys? 🙂
  11. Without disciplinary proceedings, I don't think the society can “order” the board members to repay unauthorized expenditures in the same way that it can order the treasurer to issue a check, or the secretary to issue a meeting notice. But the society can demand such payment the same way it can demand something from anyone who owes it money. The society can determine that the action taken was outside the board's authority and therefore the board members are personally responsible. And then if the board members don't want to pay, the society can attempt to force the issue, either through legal proceedings or an internal disciplinary process. My quibble is not with whether the board members may have to pay or do have to pay, but I'm just not thrilled with your proposed distinction between parliamentary requirements and legal obligations. There may always be legal considerations regarding the real-world ramifications of decisions made in a meeting; parliamentary procedure is merely concerned with how those decisions are validly made, and does not itself impose financial obligations. But it is true that RONR makes mention in several places of incurring monetary obligations, such as: • "It is different with members who have not paid their dues up to the date of sending in their resignations. Until they have settled their dues, the society is under no obligation to accept their resignations, and thus additional amounts may become due." (32:8) • "Members cannot be assessed any additional payment aside from their dues unless it is provided for in the bylaws." (56:19) • "Punishments that a society can impose generally fall under the headings of censure, fine (if authorized in the bylaws), suspension, or expulsion. The extreme penalty that an organization or society can impose on a member is expulsion." (62:1) • "The usual possible penalties for an officer are censure or removal from office, although in special circumstances others may be appropriate (for example, to repay into the society's treasury funds that the officer has been found guilty of misappropriating, perhaps with an added fine)." 63:33(f) But I think those are just useful provisions for a society to have, usually arising out of the nature of bylaw provisions, and not really matters of parliamentary procedure per se.
  12. Well, I don't know why you keep bringing up your bylaws since they have nothing to do with Robert's Rules. 🙂 But I disagree that the vote in your rule refers to a requirement for considering the amendment. I don't see any phrase other than “the proposed amendment” that could grammatically be the antecedent of “it”. The portion of this rule that says “and it must receive …” is clearly separate from the “unless” portion that says “shall not be considered in order unless the propounder of the proposed amendment shall have first furnished a minimum of one thousand (1000) copies of the proposed amendment”. If the latter portion said “and it receives…” instead of “,and it must receive…”, then I might agree there is at least some ambiguity as to whether the vote required was part of the prerequisites for entertaining the amendment.
  13. Interesting. I would call that a semantic error rather than a grammatical error, but either way I think the addition of "(sic)" just made your question a bit harder to read.
  14. You mean because it begins with "Proposed amendments" but then later refers to "the proposed amendment"?
  15. I don't think parliamentary procedure says anything about whether board members are required to repay things. It simply recognizes that a board has no more authority than it is given by the governing documents, and that members of an assembly who vote in favor of something assume responsibility for that thing if their vote prevails.
  16. I'm curious why you think a "(sic)" is warranted here.
  17. Well, Don and anyone else can complain as little or as much as they want, but the result still stands.
  18. See definition 2a at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rescind rescind. transitive verb: take back, cancel
  19. RONR doesn't speak of "bundling" motions, but any time a member attempts to move the adoption of several motions on different subjects at the same time, this can be done only if no member objects.
  20. I'm not familiar with the interface for other users, but moderators have to check a box to turn on the notice that a post has been edited. Moderators can also see the notice that a post has been edited regardless of whether that checkbox has been turned on.
  21. Nothing in this description resembles how business is conducted under Robert's Rules of Order. I think your guess as to what happens next, according to the way this board handles its business, is as good as ours, if not better.
  22. It's always confounding when the book gets things wrong. 🙂
×
×
  • Create New...