Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Grey Area


Rev Ed

Recommended Posts

based on Richard Brown's response (post #7) in the discussion on Condo Boards (http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/26050-condo-boards/), I have a question:

 

Why are there sections of RONR that provide for 'grey areas'?  For example, with the referenced discussion, why is it that RONR allows a resignation to to automatically occur if not specifically refused or accepted if no action is taken 'within a reasonable time'.  Why does RONR not define this type of situation - what may be reasonable to one person, may not be to another.  For example, if I resigned from a position and waited two weeks, I could then assume that a 'reasonable time frame' has occurred - while the Board (assuming they had the power to accept resignations) may not have had the time to hold a meeting to accept or reject the resignation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

based on Richard Brown's response (post #7) in the discussion on Condo Boards (http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/26050-condo-boards/), I have a question:

 

Why are there sections of RONR that provide for 'grey areas'?  For example, with the referenced discussion, why is it that RONR allows a resignation to to automatically occur if not specifically refused or accepted if no action is taken 'within a reasonable time'.  Why does RONR not define this type of situation - what may be reasonable to one person, may not be to another.  For example, if I resigned from a position and waited two weeks, I could then assume that a 'reasonable time frame' has occurred - while the Board (assuming they had the power to accept resignations) may not have had the time to hold a meeting to accept or reject the resignation.

 

If the board has the authority to accept the resignations and the board has not yet been able to hold a meeting, then there quite clearly has not been a reasonable opportunity for the resignation to be accepted.

 

As I understand it, if an officer resigns, he can't just drop everything immediately - he's supposed to continue to carry out his duties until there's been a reasonable opportunity for the resignation to be accepted. If the board drags its heels and does nothing when it meets, the officer is under no further obligation to continue to perform his duties. I'm not sure this means that the resignation has been accepted, especially in the circumstance described in that thread, in which the officer has now changed his mind and wishes to continue serving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the board has the authority to accept the resignations and the board has not yet been able to hold a meeting, then there quite clearly has not been a reasonable opportunity for the resignation to be accepted.

 

But that doesn't answer the OP's question:

 

Why are there sections of RONR that provide for 'grey areas'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are there sections of RONR that provide for 'grey areas'?

 

The rule regarding resignations states this (p. 291):

"The duties of a position must not be abandoned until a resignation has been accepted and becomes effective, or at least until there has been a reasonable opportunity for it to be accepted."

 

Would you prefer that it stated something like this?

The duties of a position must not be abandoned until a resignation has been accepted and becomes effective, or at least until two weeks after it has been submitted.

 

I think that such a provision would be quite futile, no matter what particular time period were prescribed. It's much better to provide, as RONR does, that after someone quits, he shouldn't quit until he reasonably decides to quit waiting to be quitted. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll quote from Richard post in the other thread: 'For example, this language on page 91: "Notice of the time, place, and purpose of the meeting, clearly and specifically describing the subject matter of the motions or items of business to be brought up, must be sent to all members a reasonable number of days in advance."   Similar language appears in several other places in RONR.'

 

That's where the confusion is for me.  RONR specifically stating 'reasonable number of day', or 'reasonable amount of time.'  On one hand it gives the organization, or the individual, a chance to determine what is 'reasonable' but at the same time it can create difficulty over how to deal the issue. 

 

Like with a regular Board meeting, while the Board may generally get through all its business during a meeting, what if for some reason it does not - thus if a Board member resigns on August 3rd, with a meeting scheduled for August 24th.  What if the meeting adjourns before accomplishing all its other business (i.e. the Board does not get a chance to deal with the resignation and other issues), and the next Board meeting isn't until September 23rd.  The resigning member may decide that on August 25th that a 'reasonable time frame' has occurred.

 

I am guessing that as many issues may be more of an academic "what it" scenario (nothing in RONR supports forcing someone to continue when they don't want to, and if a meeting time/location is not convenient then a majority of members are not likely to attend) RONR does not have to deal with what is 'reasonable', but I thought I would ask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say because what's reasonable may vary for different organizations.  A local flower club is different from a trade union whose membership is scattered world-wide.  RONR recognizes that groups will have to make decisions.  

 

The rules are premised on organizations being comprised of reasonable people who want to follow the rules, in both letter and spirit, and who are concerned with the rights of absentees and minorities, as well as with the rights of the assembly not to be overly burdened.  If you don't have that, the rules will do you no good anyway, except to serve as evidence in court of wrong-doing - and courts handle "reasonableness" standards all the time.

 

More generally:  the rules are made for people, not the other way around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like with a regular Board meeting, while the Board may generally get through all its business during a meeting, what if for some reason it does not - thus if a Board member resigns on August 3rd, with a meeting scheduled for August 24th. What if the meeting adjourns before accomplishing all its other business (i.e. the Board does not get a chance to deal with the resignation and other issues), and the next Board meeting isn't until September 23rd. The resigning member may decide that on August 25th that a 'reasonable time frame' has occurred.

I would probably agree with the resigning member. The board is entirely capable of rearranging its business, and accepting a resignation generally takes only a few moments, so I don't think "We met, but we didn't have enough time" is a very convincing excuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...