Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Joshua Katz

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Joshua Katz

  • Rank
    RP, Formerly Godelfan
  1. Email motion

    If this, rather than what was previously described, is the language in the call of the meeting, then, in my opinion, it is in order to consider this motion at the meeting. It would not, in my opinion, be in order to 'reconsider' for much the same reason that the motion is in order - the email ballot did not, in my view, take place during the same "session" as the electronic meeting (and certainly not on the same or prior day). I don't think the Jan. 15 provision puts it outside the scope of the call of the meeting, although only your organization can ultimately make that call. If you cannot get unanimous consent to your email ballots, and end up conducting electronic meetings, my personal advice would be to scrap email voting. An alternative, of course, is to change the required vote threshold on email votes. However, my opinion is that synchronous meetings are always better than asynchronous. (I also prefer in-person over electronic where possible.)
  2. Email motion

    While a failed motion cannot, ordinarily, be made again within the same session, email votes permitted by your emails do not occur during any session. Therefore, they do not prevent the same motion from being made at an actual meeting. Whether the same motion may be made at this particular special meeting, though (assuming, of course, that your bylaws allow special meetings) depends on the call of the meeting. If the call of the meeting simply says "to discuss the 'content' of the motion" then, as far as I can tell, no business whatsoever can be conducted at the special meeting. If it is worded differently, though, and says that business on the topic will be conducted (in some way), then, I think, the motion is in order. What exactly does the call say?
  3. President of a unincorporated guild

    I think it's a good way, in general. This question should be asked to an attorney, and we don't give legal advice. (Or maybe an accountant or relevant consultant. In any event, though, it's not a parliamentary question.)
  4. Not Voting vs Abstaining

    This is also, in my opinion, a valid reason to abstain.
  5. Committee Chair

    Or, although it's a bit impractical, the body could recess for 10 minutes at the end of the meeting, then return and approve the minutes (which were typed up during the recess).
  6. Bylaws superceding RONR

    According to RONR, your bylaws prevail over your parliamentary authority in the event of a conflict. I'm not even seeing the conflict, though - RONR doesn't say "once nominations are closed, nothing can be done about ineligible people seeking office." Of course, with nothing else to go on, I have no idea if they are, in fact, ineligible to be nominated, but RONR doesn't say to ignore your bylaws and allow ineligible people to be nominated.
  7. Councilwoman

    Except in committee, where it may be made by anyone who did not vote on the losing side.
  8. President

    I read this a few times, looking for the disagreement, and have concluded that the only answer must be that my comment was unclear. I agree fully with Mr. Brown. Or maybe we have read the initial statement differently as regards "suggested." I understood "suggested" here to mean, not recommending a course of action, but making a claim. On the other hand, if they simply said "we discussed it, and we suggest that you shouldn't be President any more and we'd like you to resign," sure, they're within their rights to do that, and Guest Pam is within her rights to say no. As an old Jewish proverb has it - any rabbi the people don't want to drum out of town is no rabbi. Any rabbi who lets himself be run out of town is no man.
  9. Ex Officio eligibility ?

    I'm not comfortable opining, personally, on whether or not the Secretary must be male based only on this paraphrase. I agree with Mr. Honemann that, based on what you've said, I don't see any such indication, but I'd want to know how exactly eligibility for the board is worded.
  10. President

    I would probably tell them "you are free to ask, and my answer is no." If they don't give a reason you should resign, you don't need to give a reason you refuse to do so. From what we've heard, they suggested incorrectly. You might try suggesting to them that they are wrong, since no action can be taken at a non-meeting.
  11. Board of Directors selection

    What do your bylaws say about their election?
  12. dismissal of old board

    According to RONR, elections take effect upon the end of the election (unless the winner is not present, in which case when they learn of their election). Your rules may be customized, though, to allow for a different start date. However, I have no idea what is meant by dissolving or dismissing the old board - certainly the organization doesn't have the choice of just ignoring the election results by failing to take some action.
  13. bobby1011

    That makes sense, but it is beyond the scope of what we can answer on this forum. It is, as far as I can tell, a legal question dependent at least in part on state law.
  14. bobby1011

    If your claim is that it can't be done because of some law or statute, that's beyond the scope of this forum. It's also something that calls for consultation with an attorney, not a google search. If it's a parliamentary question, I don't see any reason the bylaws cannot be changed in this manner.
  15. Voting Website

    As much as I prefer in-person meetings, for a variety of reasons, I agree that electronic meetings are generally preferable to asynchronous voting.