Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Shmuel Gerber

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Shmuel Gerber

  1. Quorum, Board, General, Bylaws,

    I don't agree with it, but I think the idea might be that the provision about the Executive Board board appointing replacement officers doesn't mention anything about a quorum being necessary to do so. Especially if they do it without voting.
  2. Paragraph D seems entirely superfluous to me. Furthermore, I don't understand what you think is accomplished by providing that the term of office shall be "... or until their successors are selected." This might be taken to imply that whoever has the power to appoint officers to fill vacancies could simply appoint a successor at any time, and surely that is not what you have in mind. I agree with Mr. Brown that you would be well advised to base the bylaws language for the term of office on the model provided in RONR.
  3. Well, I should think that it's Mr. Novosielski saying something in agreement with RONR, not the other way around.
  4. majority of cumulative votes

    Assuming that the statute you quoted is applicable, there is your answer. No majority is needed.
  5. majority of cumulative votes

    Please provide an exact quote of the rule(s) regarding the election of board members, including any rules about cumulative voting.
  6. Message Board

    It's in the Settings area, not the profile: http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/settings/signature/
  7. Message Board

    You're probably browsing in the "RONR Message Board – Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised" category at http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/forum/3-ronr-message-board-–-robert’s-rules-of-order-newly-revised/ Go back to the top-level page, and you should see all the forums, including the "About the Message Board" category that includes the "Questions or Comments about the Message Board" forum.
  8. No, you do not have that right.
  9. "Too late for renewal" means that it's too late for another member to provide the same notice. So at this point, after the actual notice of the meeting has already been sent, presumably it is too late -- and so it makes no difference what the original proposer of the change wants, and the notice cannot be withdrawn. However, I'm not sure what you mean by "the submitter of a change to a constitutional amendment." If you mean that there is a constitutional amendment that is going to be considered at the meeting, and a member provided notice of wanting to offer an amendment ("change") to that amendment, then the possibility of withdrawing notice of the "change" will depend on whether or not the "change" exceeds the scope of the original "amendment." But that is all just technical stuff. The bottom line is that if any members other than the original provider of notice want the change to be considered, they can make that happen, either by providing another notice (probably not in this case, though, because it's too late) or by making the motion themselves based on the original notice.
  10. But actually, that rule simply says that if the member who provided previous notice for a motion does not make the motion, another member may make it. The rule regarding formal withdrawal of a notice is different, and is stated on page 297, lines 20-25: "... a previous notice of a proposed motion requiring such notice ... cannot be withdrawn after it is too late for renewal, unless unanimous consent is given."
  11. Principle of interpretation

    In general, I don't think that such open-ended duty assignments are advisable. In most organizations, the officers do their duties on a voluntary basis, and it doesn't make sense to ask people to volunteer for positions in which they are required to do whatever unspecified additional tasks a majority at some future meeting decides they have to start doing.
  12. The individual amendments for which notice has been given should be considered before the revision is considered, and then this problem won't arise. And if the amendments are adopted, presumably there will be little objection to including the amended passages into the motion to adopt the revision.
  13. Motion During New Business

    Yes, unless it happens to be a motion for which previous notice is required.
  14. That is not correct; members have the right to examine the bylaws as well. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 460, ll. 13-17.
  15. A constitution & bylaws merger

    Actually, quite the opposite. I was saying that everyone should be made to understand that these two clauses are inseparable, for the reasons Chip stated.
  16. A constitution & bylaws merger

    Well, you'd better make sure that these two parts don't get divided from each other.
  17. Wouldn't it at least establish the custom of adhering to the rules in the adopted parliamentary authority?
  18. Tiny Typo

    Thanks. You might want to review the following post as well, which has a collection of various typos in RONR 11: http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/27129-typos-in-the-11th-edition/ And that post includes a link to an earlier comment http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/27716-reconsider-where-previous-question-carried/?tab=comments#comment-159238 with the same typo that you found. But please keep reading -- you may yet find a new typo!
  19. Making a Ballot Vote Unanimous

    I relinquish the chair to Vice President J. J. and let him deal with it. :-)
  20. amendment

    There is no limit to the number of amendments that can be offered to a main motion, but in the ordinary deliberative process only one amendment of the same degree may be pending at any one time, and there cannot be more than two degrees of amendment.
  21. It's probably a glitch (for which undoubtedly there is some reason). If you have a dire need for this information while browsing on your phone, you could choose "Request desktop site" from the Chrome browser menu.
  22. Motion in Conflict with Law

    I was going to elaborate some (I'm not in class, so I have some time), but then I remembered that we've had this discussion in the past --probably more than once. Two pages of it can be seen here: http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/26562-motions-that-conflict-with-non-procedural-laws/
  23. Motion in Conflict with Law

    And therein lies my motivation in responding to it. I don't think I misunderstood, but then again I suppose that's the nature of misunderstanding. :-) As do I. That doesn't mean I can't discuss why I would recommend a different way of explaining the issue.