Daniel H. Honemann

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Daniel H. Honemann

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location
    Timonium, Maryland

Recent Profile Visitors

3,692 profile views
  1. No, your bylaws do not follow Robert's Rules in this regard. The rule in RONR is that abstentions are not counted. Your bylaws, in effect, count abstentions as "no" votes. As far as the rules in RONR are concerned, no member can be individually deprived of his right to vote except through disciplinary proceedings. (RONR, 11th ed., p. 3, ll. 1-9) I think you will need a bylaw amendment to deprive individual members of their right to vote under specified circumstances.
  2. Mr. Smith, you have told us that your bylaws provide that "The acts approved by a majority of those present at a meeting at which a quorum is present shall constitute the acts of the Board." Nothing in RONR will change the fact that 3 is not more than half of 6.
  3. I thought that my initial post did answer the question with respect to the current status of the motion, and I do think that the other two are moot, or, as I said, will become moot very shortly.
  4. Maybe, maybe not. From what Mr. Rowe has posted, it would appear that his club has a number of rules which must be complied with before a motion of this kind can be introduced.
  5. It seems to me that what is most likely intended is that the effective date of a committee appointment will be the date on which the executive committee's approval of the President's appointment is ratified by the board. In other words, the approval process proceeds up the chain of command, and doesn't bounce around within it. But then again, if push comes to shove, I won't get to vote on it.
  6. The motion which was declared to have been defeated must be considered to have been validly defeated until such time as your club's membership determines that the vote was null and void (unless your club has some rule that specifically grants another body the authority to make such a determination). So if the questions you are asking aren't moot now, they probably will be within just a few days.
  7. In attempting to understand what is meant by "retroactive" in this connection, it may be helpful to look at General Robert's response to (c) in Q&A 58 on pages 429-30 of PL, and to Q&A 108 on pages 452-53.
  8. I'm pretty sure it isn't determined by reference to RONR.
  9. A bylaw amendment such as this has absolutely no retroactive effect. It may provide that, from the date of its adoption onward, certain persons shall be considered as if they had been members of A for three years, but this does not have the effect of actually making them members of A prior to its adoption.
  10. No, not on the grounds that it violates any rule in RONR.
  11. I suppose it's possible, since an organization's governing documents can provide for just about anything. What, exactly, did you have in mind?
  12. Guest Guest, assuming that nothing in your rules gives some entity other than your membership's assembly the authority to issue definitive rulings concerning the question you have raised, it seems to me that what will happen is something such as this: At your membership meeting next year when the election of officers would ordinarily occur, a point of order will be raised that an election should or should not be held, depending on what happens (or doesn't happen) at that time, the chair will rule on the point of order, an appeal will be taken from the ruling of the chair, and the question will then be resolved by your membership. Or maybe there will be an occasion to properly raise a point of order concerning the matter prior to that time, for example if a nominating committee is to be created. But in any event, it's your membership's assembly that will ultimately decide this question.
  13. Although not an exact quote, I think this is taken from RONR, 11th ed., page 14, lines 18-22.
  14. At the next meeting, all members in attendance may vote.