Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Weldon Merritt

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Weldon Merritt

  • Birthday 03/09/1944

Profile Information

  • Location:
    Spokane, Washington

Recent Profile Visitors

1,124 profile views
  1. Minutes Question

    "Question," in this context, refers to an issue under consideration by the assembly. If you substitue "motion" for "question," the passage may make more sense to you.
  2. EC refuses to hear motions on the floor

    Based on the infomation you have given us, it isn't.
  3. Election by Acclamation

    Agreeing with George, I will just add that if the election is conducted properly, it would be unusual for an unopposed candidate to not reeceive a majority vote. It is improper to have votes "for" and "against" a candiate, as the only legitimate way to vote against a candidate is to vote for another one. And abstentions (including blank ballots) don't count. So the only way the sole nominee would not get a majority would be if there are enough write-in or illegal votes to preclude it.
  4. Specificity of Special Meeting Notice

    Based on the quote that George posted, I would think not.
  5. Specificity of Special Meeting Notice

    Thanks, Geeorge, John, and Richard. That's what I thought, but I was looking for confirmnation.
  6. If a special meeting is called for the purpose of considering a motion to make a donation to a specified fund, is it necessary that the notice specify the amount of the donation? (The bylaws provide for special meetings, and the donation would be within the organization’s object.) If it is not necessary to specify the amount, then it seems that the motion could be for any amount (at least up to the amount in the treasury). But if the amount must be specified in the notice, then I assume that an amendment to decrease the amount would be in order, but an amendment to increase the amount would not be.
  7. Condo HOA - Approval of Meeting Minutes

    Unless applicable state law or the HOA governing documents grant that right.
  8. Nothing at all, in my opinion, so long as the substitution is moved when no other primary amendment is pending. But it would have to be the existing document with at least some change. Offering the existing document with no change would not be in order, since adopoting that would be equivalent to simply rejecting the proposed revision (leaving the existing doucument in effect).
  9. If this was not "not a formal board action," it probably shouldn't have been in the minutes in the first place.
  10. Of course it is. But that doesn't preclude us pointing out that it would be a pretty stupid idea.
  11. Co-Anything (again...)

    I read smcgovern's post as saying that the two positions of Vice President and Cheer Commissioner were being shared by two members each (i.e., co-Vice Presidents and co-Cheer Commissioners). If so, that is prohibited unless the bylaws provide for it. But after re-reeading the post, I can see where it could be (and more liklely is) a case of one member holding two positions. If that indeed is what smcgovern is talking about, then I agree with J.J. [Edited to correct J.J.'s initials.]
  12. How do we know it's a paid job? Unless I missed it somehow, the OP doesn't say that it is. "Event Director" may just be the title for one of the board positions, or some other appointed position similar to a committee chair. Either way, however, it seems to me that if the board has a backbone, they can order the director to plan the event (if it is not too late, as the OP suggests it nmay be). Then if the director still refuses, he can be subjected to disciplinary action. The real problem seems to be the board's reluctance "to piss of the director." [Edited to correct a typo.]
  13. Is the election valid?

    You're not worried about a bylaws issue, but about the erroneous declaration of an election winner. But others may be more concerned about an erroneous declaration of the result of a bylaws vote (or any of a number of other issues). I agree with Mr. Martin that the RONR rule is as it should be, and any asembly that wants to add to the list can do so by a special rule of order. (Even better would be for the members to learn to pay attention and raise point of order when appropriate.)
  14. How about, "if the ex-officio member of the board is under the authority of the society (that is, if he is a member, an employee, or an elected or appointed officer of the society), there is no distinction between him and the other board members. If the ex-officio member is not under the authority of the society, he has all the privileges of board membership, including the right to make motions and to vote, but none of the obligations" (RONR, p. 483, ll. 26-33), and "The rules affecting ex-officio members of committees are the same as those applying to ex-officio members of boards" (P. 497, ll. 20-21). The exception for the president as an ex-officio committee member follows immediately after the second quoted passage. So it seems pretty clear to me that the rule about not counting toward the committeee quorum applies only to the president.