Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

DR Stockley

Members
  • Posts

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

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

DR Stockley's Achievements

  1. Thank you all for your advice. I think I'm going to suggest that the clause be changed to: Section 4: To insert "Any motion to adopt, amend or abolish a standing rule and /or special rule of order of the Post must be read at two consecutive meetings followed by a vote after the final reading. Notice of the proposed motion shall be posted on the post bulletin board and to any other media that is currently in use by the post for keeping the members informed of post news and activities." before submission to the membership. Thank you all again. I'll let you all know of the results.
  2. Yes, Joshua, they do indeed do seem to do as they wish. Although, their actions are not always in their best interest. Of course, I've always been of the opinion that if don't show up to vote you really can't complain too much about the outcome.
  3. Thank you, Richard. That would probably be good to consider. Frankly, I'm not too sure wording referring to"...federal, stale and local laws..." is necessary since we cannot, under our National Charter, do anything in violation of any law anyway.
  4. Thank you for your opinion, Joshua. I think that the proposed amendment stems from a question of whether or not the club room was to be made a non-smoking area when state law did not mandate it. The non-prevailing side of the question seem to feel that the question, although hotly debated among the member present at the time, should have been postponed until they could muster the votes they needed. Their attempt to postpone the vote did not pass, however. It is my belief that this particular amendment is an attempt to appease those members and to give them a means to avoid being caught short on votes should other questions arise that may be closely contested. My concern is that once a clause such as this became part of the by-laws, it could be used to slow the normal workings of the organization. Of course, that may not come under the purview of RONR.
  5. While serving on a committee to review and propose amendments to our post by-laws, the following clause was proposed for addition to them: Section 4: To insert "Any motion to change rules and regulations of XXX Post XXXX that fall outside of the purview of federal, state, or local law must be read at two consecutive meetings followed by a vote after the final reading. The Post Commander will be responsible for posting notification of motion following the first reading on post bulletin board and to any other media that is currently in use by the post." I'm of the opinion that the insertion of such a clause would apply to practically all motions made at regular meetings and thus restrict the memberships ability to conduct business in a timely fashion. Since amendments to the by-laws already require a reading at two consecutive meetings with all members in good standing to be notified by first class mail before the final vote being taken requiring a 2/3's vote to pass, I don't see the need for such a clause. This clause would, in my opinion, bypass the normal procedure for the passage of measures that normally require only a majority to adopt. I'm curious as to your opinion of whether this is compatible with parliamentary procedures according to Robert's.
  6. The titles were determined at the time the organization was first chartered. It is doubtful that proposing they be changed at the 119th Annual Convention would meet with much acceptance, even if it came from somewhere higher than local post level.
  7. Oh! I did resign my position as Judge Advocate so as to free myself to exercise my full membership rights. I did then introduce a resolution for a special rule to allow the Post Judge Advocate to exercise the full rights of membership as any other member which was unanimously adopted. This I did to insure that my successor doesn't find themselves frustrated and to make it easier for the organization to find someone willing to fill the position. However, I have declined to accept reappointment to the position feeling that I can best serve as a regular member.
  8. While I'm not familiar with either of those two groups, if I'm correct in assuming that they are both auxiliary organizations of the American Legion, I would think that any prohibitions to duel memberships would be a matter covered under their national by-laws. I know that the national by-laws of our organization does not permit members from holding two elected offices at the same time. However, that is in relation to their membership in one organization and not subsidiary units.
  9. In our organization the titles to elected offices are of a quasi-military nature. Commander equates to president, Quarter Master to Treasurer and so on. In actuality, the organization is closer to a pure democracy with all members having one vote and no members vote carrying more weight than any others. Unfortunately, issue sometimes arise when carrier military retirees are elected to positions and do not fully appreciate that the title of Commander is not the same as being "In Command" of a military unit.
  10. True. Unfortunately, rank doesn't always convert to a completely democratic system.
  11. You are undoubtedly correct. For if a member is not in good standing he would not be able to attend the meetings under our By-Laws.
  12. Thank you all again for your advice. By now you have probably surmised that the organization of which I am a member is a Veterans organization. One which has existed for some 118 years. Unfortunately, at the post level most of the membership isn't particularly knowledgeable with regard to Parliamentary Law, nor are they inclined to take much stock in it if left to their own devices. A recent amendment to the National By-Laws which changed the Parliamentary Authority recognized by the organization from Demeter's to Robert's Rules has lead to an increased awareness of procedural matters. Alas! I must admit to, over the years, allowing the strict adherence to proper procedures to become somewhat lax. Thank you all again for all your advice. I will undoubtedly, be seeking more of your expertise in the future.
  13. Our normal procedure for when a candidate is running unopposed is for a member to move that the adjutant cast one unanimous ballot for the candidate, second followed by a voice vote. If there are two or more candidates for the office, the election is handled by ballot.
  14. We have for many years taped the our meetings to aid the Adjutant in taking accurate minutes. Of course, this practice was approved by the membership decades ago when I was the Post Adjutant (Secretary). Of course, owing to state law all parties have to be made aware that the making of audio recordings is being done. I'm not sure of whether a member recording, either openly or clandestinely, would be permitted under that same notification in the eyes of the law. However, I suppose that any restrictions to it would have to determined with the By-Laws rather than RONR.
  15. Since your by-laws state that the Parliamentarian, usually an advisory position, it might be prudent to make a change to that rule by an amendment also.
×
×
  • Create New...