Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

J. J.

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by J. J.

  1. Changing election procedure

    It would be possible to have the ballots cast at the meeting, and at a polling time afterward. I would note that the rules Bruce Lages cited would apply in that situation as well.
  2. Yes, if: A. this committee has a role in approving the bylaw amendment. B. The votes of these two effect the results.
  3. There can be other good reasons, especially if mail ballots are not authorized in the bylaws. I just think it would be easier to hold another election; that would solve this particular problem.
  4. Agree in part and dissent in part. The bylaw amendment, as proposed, would not "legitimize" the election. That said, there could be a bylaw amendment that would permit the result to stand. For example, an amendment that said, "The results of the election of the _____ Committee, as announced at the meeting of _________, shall be legitimate and shall not be questioned," or something similar. It would not be necessary to hold an election, in that case. I would think that, usually, this would be like using an elephant gun to kill a fly, but it could be done.
  5. Agreeing completely with Mr. Honemann, I would cite p. 589-590, # 4. "If the bylaws authorize certain things specifically, other things of the same class are thereby prohibited."
  6. It technically would be "rescind" but "expel."
  7. Suspension of rules

    Since at least 1915, RONR has taken a 2/3 vote to suspend the rules, if the rule deals with the transaction of business in meetings or with the duties of the officers in that regard. These are called "special rules of order." I'm not certain if that is a direct quote, but you find the description of this on p. 17. A rule that relates to the administration of the society, is called a standing rule. If the rule has some function within the context of the meeting, it could suspended, during the meeting, by a majority vote (p. 18).

    I think this point is key. If the member says, "I appeal the decision of the board in regard to ____," in the form of incidental motion to appeal, that motion would be out of order*. The decision of the board cannot be appealed. It could possibly be rescinded. There could be two questions. First, do the bylaws permit the assembly to rescind (or reverse) the board's disciplinary decision? Second, if yes, what would be the proper way to do it? *Unless the bylaws specifically permit this.
  9. Democracy and Morality

    I normally say, "I don't do legal." I don't do moral either. I think that the majority can make a decision that is immoral. Parliamentary law, however, deals with the process used to reach the decision.
  10. Parliamentarians - Duel

    Sorry about that.
  11. Workshop rules

    It depends on what this "workshop" is. If this is a formal meeting of the assembly, and defined in the bylaws as such, yes. If this a group of members getting together, no.
  12. Parliamentarians - Duel

    Yes, "The Art of the Coup d'Etat, Parliamentary Journal, October 2002 and "Combat Parliamentarians," Parliamentary Journal, January 1976. Parliamentary Journal is published by the American Institute of Parliamentarians. You might contact the editor.
  13. Decorum in Debate

    The logic is that the maker of the initial main motion: A. Can argue against the proposed amendment. B. Can request permission to withdraw the motion, even after it has been amended. Doing either one will let his feelings be known. Now, even after amendment, the maker of the initial main motion can ask to withdraw the now amended motion.
  14. Decorum in Debate

    I will disagree a bit. While a member may ask permission to withdraw a main motion he made, after that main motion has been amended, he cannot speak against it (p. 393, ll. 23-26). This would be true even if the main motion is amended is such a way to change the intent of the motion, e.g., to strike out "censure" and insert "commend." The member may speak against the amendment, when it is pending, and could even indicate that, if the amendment is adopted, he would vote against the main motion. He could move to suspend the rules to permit him to speak against the main motion, after it is amended.
  15. Empty Ballot

    Even in this case, I think nominations could be reopened by a majority vote. If the bylaws, "Nominations from the floor shall be made at the October meeting," that would not preclude reopening nominations at the November meeting by a majority. If after the bylaws said, after that, "There shall be no additional nominations after the October meeting," then you would be talking about suspending the rules.
  16. Minutes of the meeting

    The next meeting, if it within the quarterly time interval. In the future, please stat a new topic.
  17. Not Voting vs Abstaining

    I'm suggest that you read “34 Noes, 1 Doubtful, 4 Ayes”, Parliamentary Journal, April 2001, where a quite similar was discussed.
  18. Well, in fairness, if the chair would refuse to call a meeting to order, the vice president could act. That would be within the meeting context, however. I'd go with disciplinary action.
  19. Looking at precedent from the US House, the person could be nominated. There are several examples of someone being ineligible when nominated/elected, but seated when meeting the eligibility requirement.
  20. Emergency

    The general members can fill the vacancies.
  21. The appointing power can generally remove the committee member. He need not be "barred." He could be removed as a committee member.
  22. Emergency

    Who elects the board members?