Rev Ed

Members
  • Content count

    2,774
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Rev Ed

  • Birthday August 19

Profile Information

  • Location
    Toronto

Recent Profile Visitors

741 profile views
  1. But that would not stop the President from appointing a general member to this Committee.
  2. Now if the member sends out a letter or email asking the group to approve the motion, the group is free to make its own decision - they could approve the motion (with someone else moving the motion), or vote it down, or do nothing.
  3. I have to agree with others - the Parliamentarian only has duties at a Board meeting and they are limited. However, I see no reason why a Parliamentarian, especially when dealing with a novice group (i.e. novice with how to conduct a meeting) should not be made available to members outside the meeting to assist with preparing for meetings. Perhaps, if the group is novice enough, the Parliamentarian could be contracted to provide assistance through meeting with the members outside of a formal meeting, such as a training session. While not a requirement, anything that helps members be better informed at at meeting and helps make the meeting run more efficiently, are good things.
  4. To me both statements are equally specific. How is it that "Members of the assembly" is less specific than naming a specific person? However, based on the plural use for the appointment by the President and the singular use for the members, I am going to say that the singular out ranks the plural but that the By-laws should be amended to clear up the issue.
  5. Yes you can still hold meetings. But try a bit harder to find a volunteer. I am certain one will step up eventually.
  6. The specific statement would take precedence over the more generic statement. But the better option would be to amend the By-laws to make the two sections say the same thing.
  7. In other words if notice is going to count as being informed through the newsletter then not only do the By-laws need to be amended but the amendment should also make it clear that the newsletter should have the notice on the first page and in a way that people will see it easily.
  8. I will second what Josh stated and add that burying it in the newsletter certainly doesn't sound like the Board is even following the intent of providing notice - so members know that there is a meeting. The newsletter is a good way of reminding members of the meeting, but is not necessarily the same thing as providing notice.
  9. Well you could read Chapter XX of RONR, after checking the By-laws of the church, to discipline the member who discussed th issue outside the meeting.
  10. Well, I guess the person moving to approve the recommendations of the investigative committee could be called the accuser. But even then that doesn't mean the person agrees with the recommendations but simply that he/she wants a resolution.
  11. Or the Board could simply adopt a motion to amend something previously approved in order to amend the proposed budget prior to the membership approving it.
  12. If the President has the power to appoint someone then yes, but check the By-laws to make sure that the President really has the power to do so. But you would not be appointed to a two year term but to the remainder of the term of the position you are appointed to. So if the previous person had done six months of the term then you would only be able to do 18 months - or the duration of the term.
  13. Yes, but with the President, the Vice president should automatically take over the duties of the President until the President can resume his or her duties.
  14. Firstly, other than temporarily remove the Chairman (President) from chairing the meeting, do the By-laws allow the Board the power to suspend a member of the Board? If not then the Board doesn't have the power to do so. If suspended, the President's duties would be handled by the 1st Vice President.
  15. RONR does not care about 'reservations'. If the member has any doubts about passing the motion (by voting yes) then the member should either abstain or vote no. Plus, prior to voting, there should be some debate - as such the member should have raised any 'reservations' during debate. The member would also have other options, such as moving that the motion be referred to a Committee or that the motion be postponed to the next meeting so members have a chance to think about the motion. But the member saying yes would mean that I would count it as a yes vote and move on.