Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Null & Void Vote

    Nothing, from a parliamentary perspective. The assembly is the ultimate judge of its own rules. You can’t “make” the assembly do anything. If the assembly refuses to correct the issue, there is no parliamentary recourse. There may be legal recourse, but that is a question for a lawyer. Since the OP’s question suggests no such reluctance on the part of the assembly to correct this issue (if there is indeed a continuing breach), your question makes me wonder if you have your own situation on your hands. If so, I suggest you post all of the relevant facts in a new topic.
  3. Who are the members

    Only the board members would need to receive copies. The board may also distribute the draft minutes to residents that attend the meeting, if it wishes to do so.
  4. Null & Void Vote

    A more interesting question is: What can be done if it is a continuing breach and a point of order is raised, and the Chair and the Assembly refuse to deal with it, what can be done? One could prove that there was no previous notice for a by-law amendment and the improper vote was used. They could use a point of order for an obvious continuing breach, but how can you make the assembly deal with it?
  5. Today
  6. Who are the members

    If the board wishes to not read the minutes before approval, they should distribute the minutes before hand. My question is who are the members that receive the copies? Is it the board members only or does it include the residents that attend the meeting?
  7. Securing Elections

    Here's a little something to give you nightmares over the next few months... https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/04/securing_electi_1.html Sleep well. (At least RONR requires paper ballots on page 424ff.)
  8. Entering a motion to remove president

    I'm also having trouble with what Tom Coronite is. Removal of the president is an action by the board, not the membership. So it should be done not at a membership meeting, regular or special, but at a board meeting (a regular board meeting or a special board meeting, take your pick) -- so, generally, would not occur in front of all the members in the first place.
  9. Uses of Committee of the Whole

    I am glad I am not a member of this assembly. I like going home after meetings.
  10. Uses of Committee of the Whole

    No. Informal Discussion would apply to a pending motion.
  11. Uses of Committee of the Whole

    Couldn't it just be moved for informal discussion?
  12. Uses of Committee of the Whole

    In this event, Committee of the Whole probably is the best tool available in RONR, and if it does not quite fit the assembly’s needs, the assembly may need to adopt special rules of order to accommodate such desires. RONR does not really anticipate that an assembly of that size would want to regularly discuss a subject with no motion pending.
  13. Entering a motion to remove president

    In the spirit of comity, I would like to disagree as little as possible with the other esteemed posters, so I should have stopped typing 25 words ago (as of "typing"); yet my drive for the correction of injustices, though more often OCD, prevails. I'll start with disagreeing with Gary P. Novosielski (I find that so easy to type, at least until I get past the first four letters): let me propose a principle, or maybe just an axiom, though I can settle on a rotted plank: The most inept, sloppy, vague, inherently contradictory, incomprehensible bylaws take precedence over the parliamentary authority. I will assume that any responses will accept that statement, at least for the sake of this argument, or explicitly say not. So let's start. I think this is mistaken: -- or at least, incomplete and misleading, because ... ... which would be absurd, which Robert's Rules (among others) recommends against, in interpreting bylaws. Rather, what the bylaws do is offer more than one way of getting a meeting convened. One way is, the president calls for it. So forget that. The other way is, " Special meetings of the Executive Board may be called by the President and/or requested by other board members ." -- That is, requested of the the inimical president? Yeah, you got a case. ... Of whom, then? Well, how about the ultimate authority of an organization. So the "other board members" announce to the membership the special meeting that they are scheduling. ...So, how do we then tell conclusively whether the membership grants this request for a special meeting? They show up for it. [Edited, 20 April 2018, 6:16 AM EDT, to add:] (O nuts. This probably makes no sense. The regular membership isn't supposed to show up for a board meeting.)
  14. Our bylaws are silent on who can bring charges. So your post is very helpful. Thank you.
  15. Write In Rejected By Club Board

    Thank you for the prompt responses. Very helpful. Thank you.
  16. Uses of Committee of the Whole

    The assembly wishes to discuss a subject with no motion pending at least once in each of approximately 25-33% of the meetings, and the assembly is >100 members. Perhaps this is a matter of interpretive disagreement, or its a theoretical debate and this isn't the place for it, or maybe it's merely my novice reading of RONR and maybe there is not much more to say on this topic except that, but my question with this passage would be, what matter is being handled in this example? That is, is a general discussion of a subject a matter to be "handled"? The point here is only to say (a) that examples and discussion in the section of RONR regarding committees generally and Committee of the Whole seem to assume that something specific beyond merely "discussion of [subject x]" was referred to or instructed of the Committee of the Whole, and (b) that if there is this other use of the committee of the whole for an assembly--to formally discuss a subject generally and without any specific instructions--that this is a powerful use of the device that deserves at least some attention in the new edition, as it is not readily apparent in the language of the 11th edition. To wit (and, if anything, perhaps this just communicates how a novice might (mis)read the text): when describing the task of committees generally, the 11th ed. says it is "to consider, investigate, or take action on certain matters..."(p. 489, II. 22-24), and I've had have a hard time understanding what it would mean for a committee to consider a subject without specifying what, exactly, a committee is supposed to consider about that subject; although, I think I might be a little clearer on that now. Regarding Committee of the Whole, the description is as follows: "In large assemblies, the use of the committee of the whole is a convenient method of considering a question [without limit of number of times of debate]" (p. 489-90). Elsewhere it reads, "The parliamentary steps in making use of committee of the whole are essentially the same as those involved in referring a subject to an ordinary committee. The assembly goes into committee of the whole (which is equivalent to voting to refer the matter to the committee)...the committee considers the referred matter, adopts a report to be made to the assembly, then votes to 'rise and report'. Finally, the committee chairman presents the report and the assembly considers the committees recommendations--all as in the case of an ordinary committee" (p. 531, IV. 22-3). These descriptions do not appear to me to be inclusive of other uses of committee of the whole as you and others have suggested, except with the exception that later in the section on Committee of the Whole, a motion simply to rise (as opposed to "rise and report") is offered as an allowable motion (p. 533, II. 7). Nonetheless, what seems to be the case is that the use of the committee of the whole in the way you describe is not explicitly precluded by the rules. I very much appreciate you and others taking the time to describe how Committee of the Whole has this other use, and I can now advise with this option in mind.
  17. Yesterday
  18. Tellers

    No.
  19. Meeting minutes

    I will leave it up to the board whether to adopt the rule. I would suggest, however, that if such a rule is adopted, the draft minutes should be clearly marked as a draft.
  20. Tellers

    Do tellers have to be members of the board?
  21. City Council Meeting

    I’m not entirely clear on what part of this process you are concerned about, but none of what occurred appears to violate any rule in RONR. Since this is a public body, however, there are almost certainly applicable state and local laws pertaining to these matters, and those rules take precedence.
  22. Consider as a whole revised by laws

    I am somewhat puzzled as to what exactly occurred. Was a revision of the bylaws proposed and (for some reason) considered as a whole? If so, how can it even be determined what individual amendments were proposed? A revision is a completely new set of bylaws, not a list of individual amendments. Was a series of individual amendments proposed and (for some reason) voted on in gross? If it was the former, I concur with Mr. Lages. Instead, a member could move to reconsider the vote on the revision, and then move to amend the parts of the revision that the assembly finds disagreeable. In the latter case, I believe it would be in order to vote on the amendments individually, however, in the future the chairman should ask if any member wishes for particular amendment(s) to be considered separately, in order to avoid this situation.
  23. Write In Rejected By Club Board

    Were there regular mail ballots? It looks to like it was e-mail ballots and in-person ballots (an arrangement which has its own problems).
  24. Uses of Committee of the Whole

    I do not think such a ruling would be correct. No. The committee is never required to adopt a report. The committee is free to simply adopt a motion to rise. “If the committee wishes to bring its proceedings to an end because it believes the matter can be better handled under the assembly's rules, or because it wishes the meeting to be adjourned, the motion to rise can be made in this form: MEMBER (obtaining the floor): I move that the committee rise. (Second.) If this motion is adopted, the committee chairman then reports: COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: The committee of the whole has had under consideration . . . [describing the matter] and has come to no conclusion thereon.” (RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 536-537) Yes. Yes. I do not think the language on pg. 299 is intended to exclude an unstructured discussion. I think it is simply expected that doing so would be less common than it would be to permit a single member to make brief remarks. I understand the concerns about the lack of limits, and the assembly is of course free to to place whatever limits in the motion it wishes, and is also free to adopt a motion ending the discussion at any time. It was my understanding that these were extenuating circumstances. Are you saying that the assembly regularly desires to have the entire assembly discus a subject with no motion pending? How large is this assembly? Good of the Order is generally a period where members make brief remarks and is not intended to be a full-fledged discussion, although it seems your assembly may use Good of the Order differently. In any event, another tool, if you really want an unstructured discussion, would be to move to Recess. This would only require a majority vote.
  25. Meeting minutes

    Yes, a rule could be adopted to permit it. I would recommend against adopting such a rule; at some point, you will probably be sending something inaccurate out to the members.
  26. Meeting minutes

    Can we release board minutes before they have been approved by the board at the next meeting? The meetings are open to the members of the organization, but often they don't attend. They still want to know what went on at the meeting.
  27. City Council Meeting

    On entering executive session: so far as RONR is concerned, a body may enter an executive session by a majority vote. However, there may be relevant laws since this is a public body, which is beyond the scope of this forum. The question about changing the plan is also beyond the scope of this forum. So far as RONR is concerned, members of bodies make motions, and those (original main) motions are amendable by the body. In this case, a non-member has submitted an application, and one individual (a non-member) made the change. The answer will depend on the rules under which this body considers such applications. Your case ultimately depends on your relevant laws. If there were no relevant laws, RONR would say that some member of the body would move to grant the request, or could move to grant some portion of it (to allow the zoning change subject to the landowner's agreement to a covenant, etc.) and that the applicant would have no parliamentary say. But that is likely not the case.
  28. City Council Meeting

    City council meeting was an open meeting when council went to discussion and vote on an issue they closed meeti Before a vote on a motion that would have required a super majority one of council members asked the applicant for a zoning change to state if they would change their proposal to remove one of the deviations Requested. The applicant was allowed to speak again Does this conform to Roberts rules and parliamentary procedures?
  1. Load more activity
×