Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Gary Novosielski

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Gary Novosielski

  • Rank
  • Birthday April 18

Profile Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

2,230 profile views
  1. I don't dispute that making a main motion is not considered a speech, but as amendments are offered during debate on the main motion, I had always assumed that making a motion, whether at the beginning or end of a speech, counted as one. I would not be unhappy to be wrong on this, as it does seem fair..
  2. In both cases, each would constitute one speech, on the main motion.
  3. Executive Meeting

    Not unless that person is a member of the group that is having the meeting.
  4. A Yes/No vote on elected office is not permitted. If they don't want this person, their only option (other than abstaining) is to nominate or write in someone else--someone eligible to hold the office. Voting for Mickey Mouse won't help.
  5. What office do you hold, and where are you getting information on "succession". In RONR the only succession is President to VP, or possibly to a line of numbered VPs. Do you have scheduled regular meetings, or are all your meetings "called"?
  6. Non Board Members acting as Board

    Well, if the board was not informed, then I fail to see how this could be called an "agreement". If they negotiated a deal with the developer, then I guess the developer is paying them. I'm not sure why you would charge them for the attorney bills--didn't they pay the attorneys themselves? Did they bill you? Can you think of a reason not to throw the bill in the trash? If I asked the other side for its view of the situation, what would they tell me? But look, there's a lot (fishy) going on here; unfortunately not much of it is parliamentary in nature. You'll have to untangle the legal stuff with lawyers. I can't tell you how to stop it. I can't figure out how it started. If I were to go to a lawyer and draft an agreement that you had to send me $50K, would you send it to me? If so, I'll be on the phone in 5 minutes. Now, as to parliamentary matters, if you have rules that general members (non-board-members) can attend board meetings you can't ban them without due process, following either your own rules on discipline or failing that, the twentieth chapter (Ch. XX) in RONR 11th ed. You can exclude non-board-members from one meeting at a time if they are disruptive. But I have to add that when some non-members repeatedly interrupt meetings, it may be uncomfortable to consider who should get the blame. If I were observing such a meeting, I would first blame the interrupting non-member, but soon would wonder whether the problem could be an ineffective presiding officer. It is the duty of the presiding officer to protect the meeting from interruption. This is best accomplished by addressing the problem firmly and early. Non-members have no right to speak at all, except as your rules allow. The mistake chairs often make is to engage the offenders on the basis of the subject they are concerned about, hoping to placate them. It only encourages them to interrupt more. When someone interrupts a meeting, the chair should stop business, and address the issue. The issue is not what the offender is concerned about. The issue is that the offender is speaking instead of being quiet. That is the only issue that the chair should address. It is easy to be sucked into responding to what they are saying, which results in fruitless dialogs. Resist. Pretend they are speaking Greek. What they are saying does not matter; that they are speaking does. Correct an outburst, warn on a repetition, third strike yer out. If there is a time set aside for general members to be heard, that's when they should make their views known. The board is free to say "Thank you," and not respond further. Enforce any time limits fairly but firmly..
  7. Member

    No. Mr. Chairman is flat wrong.
  8. Motion to amend

    The answer is (2). You can't do (1) because until a vote is taken on the amendment, there is no amended motion. And there might not be, if the amendment is voted down. In short, you can't vote on a motion until you know what it says, and you don't know what it says until all amendments are decided.
  9. No. Unless the bylaws give the president such extraordinary powers, this is a pretty wild overreach, and would appear to be sufficient cause to bring disciplinary action against the president.
  10. Order of Separate Resolutions

    No, he cannot demand it, but he can move (or ask unanimous consent) that it be considered out of its proper order, requiring at least a 2/3 vote, or can move to lay the original motion on the table (majority vote required) in order to reach the separated motion, then take the original motion from the table. I would expect the members to consider just what Resolution No. 3 says, and how it might affect the adoption of remaining questions, when deciding whether to agree or not.
  11. Changing Contract Signing Privileges

    I wonder whether there is another possibility. If the bylaws contain language that the vice president performs the duties of president in the absence or inability of the president to act, and if the assembly adopted a motion explicitly directing the president to sign this contract within n days, and the president failed to do so, could the VP then sign instead. This is a question, not an answer.
  12. Voting Procedure

    There is no rule in RONR against it. Whether it is proper to vote Yes on something that one has not read is another question--one that is also not covered in RONR.
  13. elections

    You keep voting until someone falls asleep, goes home, or passes away, thereby changing the results. Or, you can move to reopen nominations and propose a compromise candidate. If you have more than two candidates, be sure to note that in order to be elected a candidate must receive a majority of the votes, i.e., more than all other candidates combined. If not, keep voting. If I'm not mistaken, there have been cases where well over 100 ballots were required to reach a decision.
  14. That's nonsense. If it takes 2/3 to leave, it obviously takes only 1/3 to stay. That's not Robert's Rules, that's math. If you do not get the requisite vote to amend the bylaws, then the bylaws are not amended, and everything stays the same. It is not in order even to make a motion to keep things as they are, since the same thing can be accomplished by making no motion at all.
  15. Approval of minutes of the last meeting

    It applies to anyone who is a member at the time of approval. It should be noted that approval of minutes does not require a motion, nor a vote as long as there are no disputed corrections.