Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Richard Brown

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Richard Brown

  • Rank
    Grand Poo-Bah

Profile Information

  • Location
    New Orleans, LA
  • Interests
    Becoming an Exalted Grand Poo-Bah

Recent Profile Visitors

2,338 profile views
  1. Running unopposed

    Fixter, your organization uses non-standard language for the vote requirement, so it is ultimately up to your organization to interpret that provision. However, in my opinion, the requirement is for an ordinary majority vote, that is, the vote of a majority of the members present and voting. I think the reference to "the members present thereat" simply defines the group that will be doing the voting. If the requirement was for a majority of the members present to vote for the winning candidate, the provision should read, per RONR, "a vote of the majority of the members present". That is different from a "majority vote". Others may disagree, and it is ultimately up to your organization to decide, but that is my interpretation. Any vote requirement different from an ordinary majority vote should be clearly stated. In my opinion, it is not clear that anything different is intended.
  2. Can a board be elected w/o a vote?

    Consider me to be that first "someone"! I'm sorry, Rev Ed, but I think both suggestions are a bad idea and rather complicated. I believe the suggestions by Mr. Novosielski and Mr. Honemann are better.
  3. standing committee with two co-chairs

    I agree. As our old friend "Edgar Guest" used to say, "You count heads, not hats".
  4. standing committee with two co-chairs

    Thanks for jumping in so quickly, John! Your article, which you linked to, is a must read for anyone in an organization that has or is even thinking about co-chairs or co-anythings.
  5. It is ultimately up to your organization to interpret its own bylaws, but I interpret the quoted provision to mean that it is important only that the person possess the qualifications at the time he actually takes office. That date appears to be January 1.
  6. That depends on EXACTLY what your bylaws say and is ultimately a question your organization must decide for itself. RONR does not address that specific issue.
  7. Minutes of the meeting

    I agree with Mr. Huynh but would add that the board itself may agree to make the board minutes available to others such as general members. Also, unless the meeting was in executive session, individual board members are free to share the minutes, but other board members might frown on this. Edited to add: the rules in RONR do not prohibit sharing the minutes, but provide that only members of the body which was meeting have the RIGHT to see the minutes.
  8. Sec/Treas.

    I don't understand. If the president is also elected to the position of secretary-treasurer, he will be holding two positions. If you are talking about splitting the combined position of secretary-treasurer into two separate positions, that would require a bylaws amendment if the current bylaws state that it is one position.
  9. Not if the requirement is an ordinary "majority vote", as opposed to "a majority of the members present" or "a majority of the entire membership". If the requirement is an ordinary majority vote, it is based on the number of members voting, not the number present. A vote of 2 to1 is a majority vote. So is a vote of 1 to 0. It doesn't matter how many are present as long as you have a quorum.
  10. Special Election

    Guest Kim, I don't quite understand the facts. Perhaps it is because your second sentence doesn't make much sense. Can you try to clarify.... and tell us what position this person currently holds and what position she wants to run for? What "both positions" are you referring to? I can tell you, though, without waiting for more information, that once a person resigns from a position, that person does not automatically get to "reclaim" the prior position. It's possible she can be re-elected to it or be appointed to it, but it is certainly not automatic.
  11. Rules on Non-Members attending Board Meetings

    Agreeing with the previous responses, I would add that this sort of thing is usually handled by unanimous consent, often by the chair stating "If there is no objection, we will allow Mr. Expert to address us for ten minutes regarding the upcoming Special Olympics." In my experience, it is rare for such things to be controversial or subject to debate. It is also quite customary for a chairman, maybe after obtaining general agreement from some other members, to invite someone to attend the meeting and to address the board, with the actual formal approval taking place by unanimous consent at the meeting.
  12. Non-voting members

    I agree with Gary Novosielski's comments and will add that it is my firm opinion that when the bylaws restrict one or more of the basic rights of a class of membership, those members still have all rights of membership except for those specifically restricted . I also believe that conclusion is the correct conclusion when applying the principles of interpretation of bylaws to such a statement in the bylaws. Only those rights specifically mentioned are excluded. Ultimately, though, it is up to each organization to interpret its own bylaws. Edited to add: I also agree with all of the comments preceding Mr.Novosielski's first comment.
  13. Committee Chair

    You have at least two more options for approving minutes when the next meeting is too far away. The first is to have the assembly, at some point prior to adjournment, authorize and appointment a special committee to approve the minutes of the meeting. The second option is to adopt a special rule of order providing for that to be done with all minutes. Frequenly, the board is authorized to approve minutes of general membership meetings.
  14. Approval is done without a vote, but I don't believe Mr. Honemann said anything about unanimous consent. In fact, once there are no more corrections, the chair simply declares the minutes adopted. That's not the same thing as unanimous consent. In fact, even if a member objects, the chair should still declare the minutes approved unless another correction is proposed. That might be a strange concept for the average layman, but it is the rule in RONR. (The rule in the AIP Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure appears to be slightly different, but we are discussing the rules in RONR).
  15. Isn't that what Mr. Honemann said in the first response?