-
Posts
10,156 -
Joined
-
Last visited
About Dan Honemann
- Currently Viewing Forums Index
Profile Information
-
Location:
Timonium, Maryland
Recent Profile Visitors
-
Dan Honemann started following Actionable Item needing members vote , Getting the courts involved , Parts of a Resolution in conflict with constitution and 6 others
-
You'll have to ask the lawyer.
-
Parts of a Resolution in conflict with constitution
Dan Honemann replied to a topic in General Discussion
But a resolution, once adopted, is no longer a resolution, it is something else. But aside from that, I would think that if a series of resolutions or motions is adopted by the adoption of a single main motion, such as described in 10:25 and 27:10, and one of them conflicts with the constitution, a point of order concerning its validity could be raised without affecting the others. Guest Joe L seems to be referring to a similar situation. Additional details would be helpful. -
Reconsider and Place on the Minutes
Dan Honemann replied to Wright Stuff's topic in General Discussion
One example of such a motion having been made occurred during one of NAP's conventions a number of years ago. Perhaps someone else who is familiar with this particular occasion will be willing to provide you with the details. -
Yes, a subordinate board may determine whether (and to what extent) it shall utilize the small board rules. What it may not do is create a special rule of order reducing the ten minute time limit for each speech imposed by RONR in 43:8, and any attempt to do so will be null and void (in this connection, see 23:9). As previously noted, however, the board is free, during any one of its sessions, to limit debate for the remainder of that session, or for any part thereof, or for any pending question, but a motion to do any of these things will require a two-thirds vote for its adoption (43:16-17). I suspect that what is of major significance to Guest ARDENT is the fact that his 3 member minority can prevent the adoption of any motion to limit debate such as those described in the immediately preceding paragraph, provided, of course, that they are present when the vote is taken and vote against it.
-
I strongly disagree. I do not see how you can draw the inference that you do from what is said at the outset of 43:8, or how you came to the understanding that the "additional language at the start of this sentence was to provide latitude for subordinate boards to adopt a special rule of order limiting debate." It is somewhat informative to note that in 43:15, RONR says that "[t]he rule allowing each member two speeches of ten minutes' length per day on each debatable question can be made either more restrictive or more liberal for all meetings of a society by adopting a special rule of order by a two-thirds vote after notice, or by a vote of a majority of the entire membership (2:14ff.; see also 10:44–51)" whereas in 43:16 we are told that "[a]n assembly at any session can change the limits of debate, for that session only, by means of a main motion adopted by a two-thirds vote without notice." (Emphasis supplied.)
-
The point is that this subordinate board does not have authority to adopt such a special rule of order unless the bylaws specifically say so (which I doubt).
-
Reconsider and Place on the Minutes
Dan Honemann replied to Wright Stuff's topic in General Discussion
The correct name of this motion is Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes. I don't think that I would characterize this motion as having been "passed" when it has been properly moved and seconded. Making and seconding this motion simply means that it cannot be called up until another day. Yes, I've seen it used but I'm not about to expend the time and effort to describe it all. 😀 -
You should announce (when appropriate) that motions and resolutions are "adopted" (or “agreed to” or “carried”). You should announce (when appropriate) that minutes are "approved". That's about it.
-
Yes, a two-thirds vote is required.
-
Well, take heart. A two-thirds vote will be needed in order for your board to adopt any such rule limiting debate. Unless your bylaws expressly say otherwise, your board does not have the authority to adopt a special rule of order limiting debate because such a rule will conflict with a rule in the parliamentary authority adopted by your association (see 49:15 in that 12th ed. of yours). It can adopt such a rule to last for one of its current sessions only, or for any part thereof, or for any pending question, but a motion to do any of these things will require a two-thirds vote for its adoption (43:16-17).
-
Public Concern expressed at Fiscal Court Meeting
Dan Honemann replied to a topic in General Discussion
As far as the rules in RONR are concerned, the answer to your question is no, discussion should not appear in the minutes of a meeting. -
"To accomplish their work, voluntary societies that have an enrolled membership generally need a provision in their bylaws establishing a relatively small quorum—considerably less than a majority of all the members. In most such organizations, it is rarely possible to obtain the attendance of a majority of the membership at a meeting. Sometimes the specification of a quorum is based on a percentage of the membership; but such a method has the disadvantage of requiring recomputation and may lead to confusion—for example, when the secretary, or other officer who is in a position to certify as to the current number of members for purposes of the percentage calculation, is absent. There is no single number or percentage of members that will be equally suitable as a quorum in all societies. The quorum should be as large a number of members as can reasonably be depended on to be present at any meeting, except in very bad weather or other exceptionally unfavorable conditions." RONR (12th ed.) 40:3
-
Text of RONR Available for Research?
Dan Honemann replied to laser158689's topic in Advanced Discussion
Why not the CD ROM referred to above? -
Well, I can't resist noting that the term "actionable item" appears nowhere in RONR, and it seems to be a rather unfortunate term to use in this connection. It appears to be inviting a lawsuit.
-
Limiting Debate while Considering by Paragraph
Dan Honemann replied to pwilson's topic in Advanced Discussion
Previous Question cannot be applied to an individual paragraph, period.