Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

paulmcclintock

Members
  • Posts

    113
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About paulmcclintock

  • Birthday August 12

Profile Information

  • Location:
    Near Seattle Washington

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

paulmcclintock's Achievements

  1. Thanks all for your replies. it added some extra depth to our NAP unit lesson on this section on Saturday.
  2. Suppose a committee member relocates too far to continue his duties, and submits in writing a resignation from the committee. At the next meeting, the president assumes the motion that the member requests to be excused from the committee duty. It is adopted by unanimous consent. Assume that the committee members are elected by the assembly, and that immediately a new member is elected to fill the vacancy. RONR 32:2 SDC 8 says: Where the member requesting to be excused from a duty has learned of the action taken on his or her request, only a negative vote can be reconsidered. RONR 56:68(6) says: A prohibition or limitation prohibits everything greater than what is prohibited, or that goes beyond the limitation; but it permits what is less than the limitation, and also permits things of the same class that are not mentioned in the prohibition or limitation and that are not evidently improper In the scenario above, can the positive vote to excuse the duty be reconsidered after the vacancy has been filled (before the requester learns of the action)?
  3. When RONR is adopted by motion for a meeting (no PA specified in the bylaws), can a bylaw provision in the nature of a rule of order be suspended? My particular concern at present is the bylaw provision that the president chair the membership meeting, with bylaw provisions allowing the VP or Secretary to chair if necessary. Can they willingly step aside to allow someone else to preside? There seems to be some amorphous common law or general parliamentary law that bylaws absolutely cannot be suspended, and it is only if RONR is a bylaw-adopted parliamentary authority (PA) that you can suspend a bylaw in the nature of a rule of order. Paul McClintock
  4. Ah, excellent hint! Thanks for the reminder! However, I'd still like to see it in the rules in 48.
  5. RONR 12th edition. 50:13(d) says, "When the chair appoints a committee...the chair must announce the names of the committee members to the assembly, naming the chairman of the committee first, as in (c) above; and until such announcement is made the committee cannot act. If the assembly orders the appointment of a special committee and it is desired to let the chair select the committee members after adjournment, this delay must be authorized by the assembly; the names of the committee members must then be announced at the next meeting and recorded in the minutes." Questions: (1) Must the minutes list the appointments even if they are made before adjournment? (2) Must non-committee appointments get recorded (e.g., president appoints parliamentarian) in the minutes? [48:4(8) says minutes should have committee reports, but I don't see where minutes contain officers' reports.] (3) Does section 48 (Minutes...) hint that the minutes are to list the appointments required by 50:13(d)? If so, where? Thanks!
  6. RONR, 12th edition. Under rules for contents of minutes, the last sentence of 48:5(2) says "If the chair voted, no special mention of this fact is made in the minutes." (2) has 3 parts: (a) is for "when a count has been ordered"; (b) is for "when the voting is by ballot"; and (c) is for "when the voting is by roll call." The no-special-mention rule would seem to me to be sensible in any of these 3 cases, but the statement seems to be a part of (c) and by that placement could be interpreted to be applicable only in the case of (c). How should the no-special-mention rule be applied? To all of (2), or only to (2)(c)? The 11th edition did not use (a), (b) and (c), but it seemed to me to be ambiguous there.
  7. Member A wants his motion to be voted on without debate or amendment. He moves "to suspend the rules and buy a new gavel." It is seconded and voted on without debate or amendment, and lacking the required two-thirds vote, is lost, though it seemed to have a majority in support. Is it in order at this point for member A to move "that we buy a new gavel" (without suspend the rules)? Does the lack of suspend the rules make it either a different question, or different circumstances, allowing it to be "renewed" at the same meeting?
  8. Certainly it is the committee's duty. But the question is on the status of the motion if the duty is not performed (whether deliberately or inadvertently). The discussion so far here supports my initial reading of the rules and DH's statement, "the motion remains in the hands of the committee, which has a duty to report it back to the next convention"; which shifts my focus on the problem that this can create. I can envision the bylaw committee forgetting all about the motion, possibly multiple years, and a second bylaw amendment in conflict with it being proposed at a later convention. I would think that a point of order could be made at the time (I think it would have to be timely) that the second bylaw amendment could not be considered until the first amendment had been disposed of. But if no point is raised and the 2nd bylaw amendment is adopted, then it legitimately stands adopted. And that the first bylaw amendment is still in the hands of the committee, and could be reported at any convention it remembered to do so. Or am I missing something?
  9. Probably not explicitly, but they probably all were expecting that. So, assume the answer is "no."
  10. Dan, A convention last year considered a bylaw amendment reported by the bylaw committee. The convention referred it back to the bylaw committee for further consideration. In preparation for the upcoming convention this year, the current bylaw committee wants to "kill" the motion, and as an alternate to reporting back with a recommendation that it not be adopted, they are considering not reporting it back at all. If they do not report it, and if the convention this year does not discharge the committee from consideration of it, does it remain in the committee for another year, and perhaps "forever," in which case no other conflicting new bylaw amendments can be considered? It seems to me that the bylaw amendment has been temporarily disposed of and carried from one annual convention (last year) to another (this year). It did not "fall to the ground" upon adjournment last year per 21:7(c) which says "Matters temporarily but not finally disposed of, except those that remain in the hands of a committee to which they have been referred, fall to the ground." A similar situation would exist if a convention "ran out of time" and adjourned before the committee could report on it. At NAP conventions, bylaw amendments are not generally referred by the convention to the committee, and any bylaw amendments that are not reached before adjournment fall to the ground. But in this case that I'm presenting, a bylaw amendment being considered by the convention last year was referred back to the bylaw committee, and the wording of 21:7(c) seems to me can be interpreted to say it remains in control of the committee "forever" until either (a) the committee reports it back to some later convention, or (b) some later convention discharges their consideration of it. But I'm uncomfortable with that interpretation; it doesn't seem "right." Thus my question to this forum. My preferred way to read the 21:7(c) rule would be that the referral had to be in the "current" meeting, or else it would fall to the ground upon adjournment. But that isn't explicit, and could be reasonably argued against, I think.
  11. An annual convention refers a motion to its standing bylaws committee one year, and at the next year's convention, the committee does not report on it, and the convention does not discharge the committee from considering it. Upon adjourning sine die, what is the status of the motion? 21:7(c) says "Matters temporarily but not finally disposed of, except those that remain in the hands of a committee to which they have been referred, fall to the ground." Does this except...referred rule apply only to items referred during the current annual convention, or will this referred motion forever be in the hands of the committee until reported or discharged or irrelevant? Paul McCintock
  12. The entity wishing to transfer (delegate) powers may be a member, an officer, an executive board, or a society. 1. RONR says a member may not transfer his power to vote to another person (unless governing documents or laws allow it explicitly). Is any other member power transferrable when the rules are silent, e.g., the right to attend even if in executive session, or to nominate? 2. The bylaws say the president is to appoint the finance committee. Can the president transfer that power for the current term to the treasurer? 3. The bylaws say the executive board ("board") is to set the time and location of the annual membership meeting. Can the board transfer these powers to the president for a particular year? What rule or citable principle answers this clearly? 4. Assume the RONR sample bylaws apply (56:58-67). 56:67 reads "These bylaws may be amended at any regular meeting of the Society by a two-thirds vote, provided that the amendment has been submitted in writing at the previous regular meeting." Can the Society adopt a bylaw amendment with a blank with the proviso that the board be authorized to fill the blank within one month and that the amendment goes into effect only if and when the board fills the blank? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondelegation_doctrine says "The doctrine of nondelegation is the theory that one branch of government must not authorize another entity to exercise the power or function which it is constitutionally authorized to exercise itself. It is explicit or implicit in all written constitutions that impose a strict structural separation of powers." And further says "However, the Supreme Court ruled in J. W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States (1928) that congressional delegation of legislative authority is an implied power of Congress that is constitutional so long as Congress provides an "intelligible principle" to guide the executive branch." Does this have any bearing on #1-4?
  13. Assume that a society's parliamentary authority is RONR, that the constitution requires a notice for meeting 14 to 60 days beforehand, and that the bylaws requires a notice for meetings 10 to 50 days beforehand. 1. Is a notice valid if sent 55 days beforehand? 2. Is a notice valid if sent 12 days beforehand? 3. Do both requirements have to be met, or does it suffice to only meet the constitution's requirements? (E.g., suppose there were no overlap, would 2 notices have to be sent?) Rather than answer that the society has to vote to interpret their rules, assume that you are a member and that such a vote is pending; how would you debate and vote? Thanks!
  14. (1) The concept of a proviso appears in RONR clearly in the context adjusting the time at which a bylaw amendment becomes effective (p. 597). Page 398 hints that it could be used more generally, as perhaps does tinted page 22. Would you agree that its use is not limited to bylaws (and perhaps other types of rules), nor to the time something is effective? For example, assume an important main motion is pending and a member fears the meeting may end with it still pending. The member would like an adjourned meeting, but only if the motion is still pending at adjournment. Can the member "move that when this meeting adjourns, it adjourn to meet Tuesday at 7 PM if the pending motion is still pending when this meeting adjourns." Or "... with the proviso that the adjourned meeting be held only if the pending motion is not disposed of before this meeting adjourns." (2) Also, suppose an adjourned meeting was set for Tuesday due to expectations it would be needed, but with no such proviso as above, and with no business postponed or scheduled for it. If the current meeting completes its business (i.e. no one responds to "is there any further new business"), is the adjourned meeting thereby automatically cancelled, just as the current meeting is automatically subject to adjourning without a motion to adjourn? Assume no one thinks to rescind the motion establishing an adjourned meeting. Must the adjourned meeting be held, and supposing the officers and most members assumed it was automatically cancelled, could a quorum-sized faction meet and conduct new business in the name of the whole organization? (3) Can provisos be used with bylaw amendments to "sunset" a provision? E.g., "Amend bylaw article _ section _ by adding xxxx, with the proviso that this provision be automatically struck on January 1, 2020." Thanks in advance for your insights!
×
×
  • Create New...