Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. Gary Novosielski

    Annual Meeting - Set for wrong week?

    Well, you can't blame them for taking the word "weekend" literally and putting it at the end.
  3. If I had known that I would have just cited page numbers! I guess it was an unusual amount of copy and paste! I think I'm one of the two frequent posters who regularly suggests people purchase either RONR or RONR in Brief and provides links to them! Glad you have the book!
  4. LOL, and yes there can be multiple minority reports but a lot will depend on what the bylaws say. And as I got constantly reminded :)) there is no such thing as a majority report, it is merely the committee report (though in our case our bylaws actually call it the majority report).
  5. Richard Brown

    usage of funds

    Guest Raine, I'm afraid that your question is a legal question and not a question about parliamentary procedure. I'm sorry, but we are not able to give legal advice on this forum.
  6. Guest

    usage of funds

    Can one 501(c)3 give money to another 501(c)3 to turn around and give the same money a third party, who is not a 501(c)3 and then ask the 3rd party to enter into an agreement as to how the funds will be spent and any money leftover goes back to the 501 receiving the money? I apologize for any confusion, but I need an answer. Something doesn't sound quite right to me. This was not done at a meeting, it was not voted on. Thank you!
  7. Guest

    Annual Meeting - Set for wrong week?

    Yeah, according to these cats after six days of creation God rested on Sunday!
  8. I think that @Caryn Ann Harlos might be interested in this issue. I believe she has chaired a committee that issued multiple reports. As I recall, there might even have been a discussion in this forum about it. 😉
  9. Yesterday
  10. "Multiple reports?" Well, yes and no. There can be only one "Majority Report" consisting of the text adopted by a majority vote of the committee members. That will be THE Committee Report. The minority (or any number of sub-minorities) can write a report but the group to which the committee is reporting is NOT obliged to officially listen (or even pay the slightest attention) to minority reports - see page 527ff. I have no idea how the US congress does such things -- I'm not sure all of them know either. It is logically impossible for there to be two (or more!) majorities giving reports.
  11. jstackpo

    Various Bylaw Interpretations

    Think of "comprise" as an non-affectionate "embrace" and your grammar will cure itself.
  12. Can a committee have multiple reports on an issue representing different viewpoints (e.g. democrats vs. republicans)? Does the majority win and decide what goes in the official committee report? How does it work in US government where a committee has democrats and republicans which may take two different sides on an issue? Do they have separate majority and minority reports? How would something like that work based on RONR if there are two different major views of a committee?
  13. George Mervosh

    Annual Meeting - Set for wrong week?

    The ISO seems like they've been spending too much time at 2FP meetings.
  14. Shmuel Gerber

    Annual Meeting - Set for wrong week?

    Remind me to stay away from the ISO, especially on weekends. 🙂
  15. Thank you all for your replies and insight it is greatly appreciated. We will work on amending to make it less ambiguous.
  16. Gary Novosielski

    Annual Meeting - Set for wrong week?

    According to ISO standards for week numbers, all weeks start on a Monday, and week #1 of the year is the week containing the first Thursday of the year. So for 2019, the 27th of January would be counted as the last day of week #4. It is also the fourth Sunday of January, which might have inspired whoever set the date.
  17. Gary Novosielski

    Various Bylaw Interpretations

    And the phrase "shall be comprised of" is ungrammatical. It should read: shall be composed of or shall comprise
  18. Josh Martin

    Various Bylaw Interpretations

    No. Your organization will have to interpret the conflict in its bylaws. My recommendation would be to amend the bylaws to remove the IPP position, which would solve this problem and likely prevent others which may arise in the future. It is generally understood that vacancies will be filled promptly, but I do not think there is anything which would actually prohibit the board from repeatedly postponing filling these vacancies until these individuals are eligible. Since your bylaws provide that the board fills vacancies, however, that is up to the board, not the President, to decide. RONR has no rules which address these issues.
  19. Josh Martin

    Oaths of office & customary law?

    I concur that custom dictates that the oath be administered, and I can see a case for the taking of the oath being a question of privilege, since it relates “to the conduct of its [the assembly’s] officers and employees,” but I would not rule that the taking of the oath “is of sufficient urgency to warrant interruption of the existing parliamentary situation.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 228) If the assembly insists on administering the oath immediately, the assembly could vote to lay the pending business on the table, or to take a recess. The key parliamentary point is that the failure to take an oath (even one prescribed by rule, let alone by custom) does not affect the time at which the officers take office and begin to perform their duties, unless the bylaws so provide. “An officer-elect takes possession of his office immediately upon his election's becoming final, unless the bylaws or other rules specify a later time. If a formal installation ceremony is prescribed, failure to hold it does not affect the time at which the new officers assume office.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 444)
  20. Alexis Hunt

    Are Special Rules Permanent?

    It's also worth noting that standing orders and special rules of order are "duck principle" type things. If it looks like a standing rule and behaves like a standing rule, then it is a standing rule, regardless of what the assembly chooses to call them or how they are organized. Likewise for special rules of order. It is usually convenient to separate them out into separate documents for organizational purposes, but if an organization doesn't do this, it doesn't change the rules around them. Most importantly, a motion does not need to explicitly enact a rule in order to do so---the motion itself becomes a rule, once it's adopted.
  21. I think that in terms of where it might be appropriate to revisit a Point of Order regarding the possibility of an action being null and void is where there is new information available that was not, or where the member raising the point can allege a specific error made in determining it previously. I agree with those who say that a continuing breach is not cured by a ruling, even by the assembly, that it was not continuing. In the context of an inquorate meeting, however, it is worth bearing in mind that the assembly would always have the power to Ratify the decisions made. Unless the assembly is full of folk who enjoy arguing rules for its own sake, I'd imagine that if the question of whether quorum was present at a meeting became a repeated concern, the correct path for the chair would be to suggest a motion to Ratify the decision or Rescind it. This wouldn't necessarily work where the required votes for recission couldn't be met, but if such a situation were to become acrimonious then there are deeper problems in the organization.
  22. Richard Brown

    Various Bylaw Interpretations

    In a quick reading the quoted provisions of your bylaws I did not notice any obvious contradictions, but did notice something worth mentioning. Section 3 on vacancies says " Section 3: Vacancies. Any vacancies occurring in the officers of the Board during the year shall be filled until the next election by a majority vote of all the then members of the Board . . . ." I find the highlighted portion troublesome because of the vague vote requirement. The quoted provision can be read to require either an ordinary majority vote of the remaining members of the board or the vote of a majority of ALL of the remaining members of the board. Those are two different vote requirements. The use of the word "all" in the phrase "all of the then members of the board" is what is causing the confusion. The default in RONR is that a "majority vote", without qualification, means a majority vote of the members present and voting. When it is desired that the vote requirement be based on either the total membership (of the board in this case) or the members present, the bylaws should clearly specify the requirement. This is explained at length in RONR on pages 4-5 and pages 400-404. It may require careful reading to understand the distinction in the wording used for a regular majority vote and the vote of a majority of the entire membership. It is a fine distinction, but a very important one. I agree with Dr. Stackpole that for a thorough review of your bylaws, you might try to find a professional credentialed parliamentarian through either the National Association of Parliamentarians (NAP) or the American Institute of Parliamentarians (AIP). We cannot provide that type of personal service in this forum. If you have a particular question about a particular provision, ask us. We might or might not be able to help. As Dr. Stackpole pointed out, each organization must interpret its own bylaws and resolve ambiguities for itself. RONR does contain some principles of interpretation of bylaw provisions on pages 588-592.
  23. Alexis Hunt

    Ex officio in the Fall 2018 NP Vol. 80 No. 1

    It seems to me that it is a compromise between a) not having the rule at all, and forcing it to be included in every set of bylaws which wishes to, possibly causing quorum problems and/or burnout in the President of organizations that forgot, b) having a rule with this unfortunate side effect, and c) leading to a vague outcome. Personally, I'm more miffed that (if memory serves, as I don't have my copy of the book with me) the rule applies specifically and only to the President.
  24. Alexis Hunt

    Unamendable Bylaws Provisions

    I would think that they likely would fail due to being contrary to the statute creating the corporation, which probably gives the Board authority to enact, amend, and repeal the corporation's bylaws. Unless there was a provision allowing the Board to limit its own power in that way, I don't think it can. EDIT: I'd also be suspicious of other parts of that provision, such as allowing a non-Director to be President, possibly contradicting the statute; that is the sort of thing that many statutes (rightly or wrongly, not my place to say) disallow.
  1. Load more activity
×