Shmuel Gerber

Administrators
  • Content count

    2,027
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Shmuel Gerber

  1. Take it from the table, and you'll find out soon enough. 🙂
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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)?
  5. 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?
  6. 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.
  7. Or maybe it was the used dictionary salesman.
  8. 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.
  9. 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?
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. A motion to Suspend the Rules is out of order when another has the floor.
  13. 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.
  14. I could start a new subforum called "Gary's Rules of Chaos," but I won't.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. Not that the numbers make any difference for this topic, but how big are their memberships? The forum has almost 4,500 registered (which is not to say active) members.
  18. The problem with that is it would render inaccurate the statement in the (say) August minutes that says "The minutes of the last meeting were read and approved," as there would no longer be any record of what was actually then approved. So you'd be correcting the July minutes as to their own content, but "incorrecting" them as to the next meeting's content.
  19. First, please don't use the word "crap" on the forum. Second, it sounds like the president may just have to remove all the members of this committee and start over with a less roguish group of appointees.
  20. I thought that my first sentence addressed your question, since you already know that the chair has the right and indeed the duty to protect the assembly from dilatory, frivolous, or absurd motions, including dilatory, frivolous, or absurd points of order and appeals. RONR is entirely clear and "readily available" on that point. I don't think it takes an expert to realize that a meeting can't be run by a chair who has no power to make rulings and that the (theoretical) member in question is offering a silly rationale for the point of order, and the chair can, politely, explain why.
  21. Seems to me as though both the point of order and the appeal are indeed dilatory or, at the very least, frivolous as well as absurd. If a member believes that the chair's initial ruling is in error, he or she should appeal from the decision of the chair, not make the silly assertion that a rule in the bylaws specifying a voting requirement prevents the chair from ruling a motion out of order.
  22. I'm not sure what a "motion to approve an ordinance" is, or why it matters whether there was a "denial action" involved if that motion fails to get the necessary votes. Certainly the rejection of the motion is some sort of denial of its approval, but we don't have enough information to know whether that matters. But regardless, I agree that there is nothing to rescind, and that a member may simply reintroduce the motion at a future meeting, unless the assembly's rules provide otherwise.
  23. Whether non-delegates have any rights to notice of motions is irrelevant to the definition of the call of a meeting. Merely giving notice to members without doing so in the call of the meeting (or orally at the previous meeting held within a quarterly time interval) does not meet the requirements for previous notice as stated in RONR.
  24. Nancy/Pennlawyer: Please note, the name box is for entering your name, not the name of the person you're replying to.
  25. So it looks to me like you basically agree with J.J.'s response but did not necessarily want to endorse the details of how he stated it.