Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Reconsideration of a Point of Order

    Thanks, Hieu. I guess I should have done a search first. That thread confirms my thinking.
  3. Yesterday
  4. Church Council election

    No. Correct, although I would say “eligible candidate” rather than “nominee.” Write-in votes are permitted. A plurality means that a candidate receives more votes than any other candidate. If there is only one nominee, then that nominee will most likely win, but there could be a very successful write-in campaign. The assembly could also vote to reopen nominations.
  5. A member has all the rights of membership unless your bylaws say otherwise.
  6. They don't address voting relative to a member on a leave of absence.
  7. Reconsideration of a Point of Order

    This question was previously asked in this thread.
  8. Church Council election

    So the other nominees need a ballot vote to comply with the bylaws. Does my yes/no ballot vote complies with the bylaws? I thought for an election the only way you could vote against someone was to vote for another nominee for that position? And how does plurality work in this case of having a ballot for single nominations? There were approximately 75 voters.
  9. RONR says that a Point of Order cannot be reconsidered. P. 249, l. 28 (SDC #8). A decision by the assembly on an Appeal. however, can be reconsidered. P. 258, l. 19 (SDC #8). A Point of Order also is undebatable, except that "f the chair submits the point to a vote of the assembly, the rules governing its debatability are the same as for an Appeal ...." P. 249, ll. 21.23 (SDC #5, emphasis in original). Does that, by implication, mean that a Point of Order that has been submitted to the assembly can be reconsidered, just as an appeal can? Logically, it seems that it should be reconsiderable under such circumstances. (Why should the assembly be able to change its mind in one circumstance but not the other?) But the explicit language of Point of Order SDC #8 does not provide an exception similar to the one in SDC #5. Is this an oversight, or is there some logic that I am missing?
  10. Motion conflicts with previously adopted motion

    If it was simply a conflicting motion not presented as one to amend something previously adopted, that's where the problem comes in on p. 343. Once a motion to amend something previously adopted is pending, you've overcome the hurdle of what RONR is saying on p. 343. See pp. 74-76. Now, certain procedural mistakes may occur while processing the motion, such as what's described in OI2006-18, but that's another matter.
  11. Revisiting a vote

    Yes, right again, it appears to have finally passed in some form. I think I'm having a bad day. Nobody should pay any attention to me until tomorrow.
  12. Public hearings

    I was counting on a misspelling, but on re-reading you could well be right. Oh, well, there's now an answer for both.
  13. That is almost certainly a matter of bylaws interpretation and will probably be determined by your bylaws. There is no such thing in RONR as a "leave of absence". What , exactly, do your bylaws say about it?
  14. I expect this is clarified in some existing thread, but I can't recall ever having this clear in my mind, so... RONR (11th ed., p. 343, l. 18-23) says "motions are out of order if they conflict with a motion that has been adopted by the society and has been neither rescinded, nor reconsidered and rejected after adoption. Such conflicting motions, if adopted, are null and void unless adopted by the vote required to rescind or amend the motion previously adopted." OI 2006-18 concerns Amend Something Previously Adopted which was amended to be out of scope and then declared adopted with a majority vote without a timely point of order; the OI says a point of order must be timely. The final paragraph says: "In the case of a rule requiring a two-thirds vote, the rule protects a minority of any number greater than one-third of the members present. However, such rules may be suspended, and if a rule is suspendable, a point of order regarding its violation must be timely." Based on this OI quote seems to me to be in conflict with the RONR text. The page 343 situation allows a two-thirds vote (for example) to adopt a conflicting motion, and the OI says that a point of order in such a case would have to be timely, but RONR says it is null and void (presumably without time constraints).
  15. If a member has taken a Leave of Absence and we have our annual meeting to elect officers are members that are on a Leave of Absence permitted to vote?
  16. Meeting Decorum,

    Thank you all for your replies, please note it was not my intent to cry, the attack on me, and my child, totally threw me off guard. it was embarrassing, and did show weakness. I feel much more prepared for the future.
  17. by laws vs other documents and process used

    Apparently, one of the bylaw requirements for admission to membership is that a candidate must have "shown an active interest in promoting the goals and objectives of the club". I suppose this may provide some wiggle room for the adoption of rules concerning what one must do in order to demonstrate sufficient interest to meet this requirement.
  18. I concur with my colleagues, but would add that if flexibility on this subject is desired, the organization could adopt a rule in the bylaws that “The organization may adopt a rule providing for a waiting period for membership.”
  19. Quorum for Public Comment & Work Session

    Conversely, if no business is conducted, no quorum is required.
  20. Public hearings

    The spelling the OP used was “council,” not “counsel,” so I believe the question is about what the role of the council’s members should be during the hearing, not what the role of their attorney should be.
  21. Revisiting a vote

    Based on the facts presented, I do not believe a motion for a revote is in order at this time. It may be in order to rescind or amend what was previously adopted, but as Mr. Huynh notes, it will be necessary to know what you were voting on. As I understand the facts, the committee was choosing between multiple options, and members were erroneously informed that a 2/3 vote (rather than a majority) was required for selection - note the statement that “several runoffs were held.” It seems that the committee eventually selected one of the options. So renewal will not be the proper course of action. It may be in order to rescind or amend the adopted motion, depending on what they were voting on.
  22. Church Council election

    If I understand correctly that there is no clause in the bylaws providing that council members shall serve “until their successors are elected,” then it would appear that the council should elect someone to serve until November 2018, at which time the membership may complete the election, and the person elected at that time shall serve the remainder of the term. I agree that the election of the other officers is null and void because a ballot vote is required by the bylaws and a ballot vote was not taken, but this would not seem to address the OP’s principle concern (that she was not elected).
  23. Roberts Rules versus Org Bylaws

    Well, I don't think that follows, but regardless, many of the organizations (perhaps most) that we deal with here are unincorporated and have no particular tax code status. Also, keeping receipts is relevant to taxation, but following parliamentary procedure is not, in general. The case law is rather definitive that courts are reluctant to deal with parliamentary issues (other than in public bodies) because of first amendment concerns. Not exactly - only if the statute is an applicable procedural statute. Substantive statutes do not, per RONR, take precedence. A motion to do something illegal under a substantive law is not out of order, and bylaws requiring, e.g., 5 murders to qualify for membership, are enforceable under RONR. (Of course, you'll go to prison for it, but that's not a parliamentary concern.) A motion to hire a hitman is not out of order. (See above.) Only where a statute bears on procedure does RONR say it governs procedurally. Tax laws, even if they had some bearing on this question, are, in general, not procedural statutes. I don't think that follows. The rule or motion could be "incoming officers will attend a RONR seminar" without suggesting anything about adoption. Many people are not aware of any distinction between parliamentary procedure and RONR. They might very well organize a "Robert's Rules" seminar without having adopted any parliamentary manual. Or a simple scenario like this could happen: An organization, noticing its meetings are inefficient, asks a PRP to come in and teach a seminar. The PRP, unsurprisingly, gives a seminar on RONR. (Or, having looked at the bylaws, may be careful to call it a parliamentary procedure seminar, but members refer to it as "that Roberts seminar we had last month.") They decide to do it again the next year, and start calling it their "RONR seminar." Sure, go look, but I wouldn't be surprised if you don't find anything.
  24. Roberts Rules versus Org Bylaws

    I’m not assuming they have adopted anything. I’m only saying that because the seminars exist, the probability that something is in the documents somwhere discussing the possible adoption of RONR. I’m trying to direct him back to the minutes to look for something that might state what he’s looking for. I’m not saying to assume they have been adopted. I’m saying look in the minutes. Mistakes can be made. Maybe someone forgot to update the rules after a motion to accept RONR in the capacity of holding such seminars. I’m hard pressed to believe they are holding seminars without something somwhere saying to do so. I’m saying go back in the minutes and see if there’s something in there.
  25. Roberts Rules versus Org Bylaws

    Clearly states the org is holding RONR seminars. Haveing these seminars points to the logical conclusion that somewhere there will likely be a rule or a motion that led to the creation of the seminars. That rule or motion would then be the org adoption RONR. I did not state that the org in question was a government org. I said that selective enforcement is illegal in the government, which it is. Selective prosecution is selective enforcement, neither of which are allowed which is written in the state and federal statutes having to do with prosecutorial conduct. The exact statute number will vary by state, but it’s there. My point was that if the government doesn’t allow selective enforcement of laws and rules, and that government writes both the IRS tax code that all of our organizations are classified under (which do contain information on required operations, evidenced by the IRS code dictating donations require receipts and what the receipt is to say) and the state statutes that also apply to our respective organizations, then it’s unlikey they would allow organizations to selectively enforce anything since they themselves see the peop lens with selective enforcement. I’m WI those statutes begin at chapter 180. Yes they do exist and they are to be followed. And it does say that anytime a bylaw and stature conflict, the statute is to be followed. Just because I say something you don’t have knowledge on, doesn’t mean what I say is BS. Saying it’s BS doesn’t actually make it BS.
  26. It's one of the principles of interpretation, namely, that when the bylaws authorize something (requirements for membership), other things of that same class (additional requirements) are thereby prohibited.
  27. Roberts Rules versus Org Bylaws

    Shelly, I disagree. You cannot assume that just because they hold an RONR seminar for incoming board members that they have officially adopted RONR as their parliamentary authority. Remember, the original poster told us in the original post that neither the bylaws nor rules even mention RONR.
  1. Load more activity
×