Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

All Activity

This stream auto-updates

  1. Past hour
  2. The principles of interpretation found in RONR, 12th ed., 56:68 may be of some assistance to you.
  3. Thanks for your reply Hieu. Yes, we are working on amending bylaws. How do we solve until the bylaws are amended? it is a right now issue.
  4. Today
  5. When there is a conflict in an organization's bylaws, what does Robert rules of order state in resolving? or should we refer to parliamentary procedure?
  6. At the next board meeting the Board will be making a motion to amend the bylaws so that RONR "may" be the parliamentary authority instead of "shall." The Article of Incorporation gives them the authority to amend the bylaws on their own! Based on that I would say that RONR is no longer the parliamentary authority of the organization, and no other authority is being suggested. Question: So if I got this right, that means that the board established Standing Committees (as well as all other committees) also loses RONR as their parliamentary authority because those committees operate under the Bylaws as stated in 50:26?
  7. Guest

    NJ Planning Board

    In NJ, can a Planning Board hold meetings with a quorem but without an attorney?
  8. "An organization should never adopt a bylaw permitting a question to be decided by a voting procedure in which the votes of persons who attend a meeting are counted together with ballots mailed in by absentees. The votes of those present could be affected by debate, by amendment, and perhaps by the need for repeated balloting, while those absent would be unable to adjust their votes to reflect these factors. Consequently, the absentee ballots would in most cases be on a somewhat different question than that on which those present were voting, leading to confusion, unfairness, and inaccuracy in determining the result. If there is a possibility of any uncertainty about who will be entitled to vote, this should be spelled out unambiguously and strictly enforced to avoid unfairness in close votes." RONR (12th ed.) 47:56 So RONR's advice is that that the organization never should have adopted rules which combine absentee votes and in-person votes in the first place and that, in the event the organization unwisely adopts such rules anyway, it should at least think about problems like this one and adopt clear rules describing how such situations are to be resolved. The organization appears to have ignored this advice on both points. Unsurprisingly, this has led to "confusion, unfairness, and inaccuracy in determining the result" and members are quite understandably "crying foul since the motion to table negated their vote." Since this is well outside the scope of RONR, it will be up to the organization to interpret its own rules and determine how this situation should be resolved. Further, it would be desirable to amend those rules in the future. I would also question whether it is known for certain that "the original motion would have passed." This determination was presumably made based upon the absentee votes. But the votes of the persons present at the meeting were (presumably) never taken on the original motion since the motion was (incorrectly) laid on the table prior to the original motion being voted on. So unless the margin of adoption exceeded the number of members present, I don't think it can be conclusively said that "the original motion would have passed."
  9. I concur with Mr. Lages. And if the chair rules that the projects must be voted on together, be prepared to appeal the ruling of the chair. See RONR 24:1-13.
  10. If the two projects are truly totally independent of each other, then the motion can be divided into consideration of each of the two projects separately on the demand of a single member. See RONR, 12th ed., 27:10 for division on demand, and section 27 in total for the motion Division of a Question, which describes the conditions when a motion and majority vote is required to divide a question into its separate parts and consider some or all of them separately.
  11. Guest

    Amending a motion

    A single motion is on the floor seeking approval of projects A (costing $5000) and B (costing $2000) for a total spend of $7000. These projects are totally independent of each other but the motion presents them as a package that will result in a single vote approving both simultaneously. Is it feasible to move to amend in an attempt to separate these projects to require a separate vote on each? If so, how would this be introduced.
  12. Yesterday
  13. Thank you all for your responses- much appreciated
  14. If your rules unwisely allow for absentee voting you are bound to run into all sorts of problems. Don't look to RONR for a solution, because, as a wise man once said here in this forum, you can't seek shelter under a roof you're tearing down.
  15. Aside from the misuse of “table,” the people crying foul over their votes being “negated” may be off base. Yes, “table” should not have been used. But if the motion on the floor had been properly postponed, that would have been done prior to their absentee votes being counted, also. In fact, whereas the original motion wasn’t voted upon, why were they counting absentee votes?
  16. The motion to "table" was not in order, and the chair should not have admitted it. What happened is a clear misuse of the subsidiary motion, Lay on the Table, since the purpose for the motion was clear to kill the main motion. RONR (12th ed.) 17:13-19. The use of the verb, "table", is confusing and misleading. In the context of parliamentary law in ordinary societies within the United States, this usage should be dropped.
  17. We had our annual meeting this past weekend and a motion was made to table a motion that was about to be voted on. It should be noted that a large percentage of members voted absentee and mailed their ballots in prior to the meeting. The motion to table passed by a majority vote from the floor. Once voting concluded and the absentee ballots were opened, it was discovered that the original motion would have passed. The issue is that those who voted absentee are crying foul since the motion to table negated their vote. Just looking for some guidance- thank you!
  18. Did the assembly take some action based on the recommendation? Record THAT in the minutes.
  19. I think we need more information. On the basis of the meager information I have so far, my answer would be, "You don't". But more information might permit me to give a better answer.
  20. No, it doesn't. It is the appropriate bylaws provision that permits them. RONR merely recognizes that some organizations may wish to have them, and what they need to do to authorize them. But since the bylaws always trump the parliamentary authority, the bylaws could authorize electronic meetings even if RONR were completely silent about them. (Unless, of course, an applicable statute prohibited them, which would be unlikely.)
  21. Those certainly are valid questions. But regardless of the answers to those questions, that fact remains that MSparks had no rights at the meeting except as may have been granted by the board's rules. That's not to say that I believe the board should have allowed the letter to be read, or to have it attached to the minutes (if they did). But any objection would have to have been voiced by a board member.
  22. Guest

    Minutes

    How to record a recommendation in the minutes, when made by the chair.
  23. Guest

    Roberts Rules and Zoom

    http://robertsrules.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/electronic-meeting-sample-rules.pdf
  24. Guest

    Roberts Rules and Zoom

    The 12th Edition of RONR does permit electronic meetings (9:30-36), but the bylaws must have a provision authorizing them. Further details can be provided in Standing Rules. The Sample Rules provided in the RONR Appendix provide proposed wording for making a motion and interrupting a member. Both recommend use of a feature designated by the Recording Secretary for this purpose, and refers to posting in writing. It does clarify, though, that these online features should be *exclusively* dedicated to the stated purpose (e.g. making a motion). There are other requirements described. Highly recommend getting a copy of RONR 12th Edition from the library and reviewing pages 635-649.
  25. It might be well to note that the rules provide for this meeting to be in executive session. When the chair calls it to order, he should also note that. I will point out that it may be possible (though certainly not advisable) to suspend the rules and conduct the meeting in open session, at least with the consent of the accused and a 2/3 vote. I have seen situations where those accused wish to waive their rights to secrecy.
  26. By what authority did this "teacher who is the head of the union for the school", who is apparently not a member of the board, read this letter? Did a member of the school board make a motion to grant the privilege? Was the motion adopted?
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...