Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. Richard Brown

    Chair Executive Authority

    These are administrative duties and details of the organization and its officers and are outside of the scope of RONR, which is concerned with how to conduct meetings. The language used on that page in RONR is illustrative of how things would normally work and what the chair might (and maybe should) say. However, what, if anything, the president can order other officers to do is outside the scope of RONR. Based on the example in the book, it does seem like the treasurer definitely should write the check and the secretary (or the president) should write a cover letter, but that passage should not be construed as giving the chair or the president the authority to order the other officers to do anything. It is just something that should occur naturally unless the organization has its own procedure for how those details are carried out, such as, someone else having the authority to write checks. If the appropriate officers fail or refuse to carry out the motion as adopted, they can be subject to disciplinary action and even removal from office. Edited to add: See, for example, this language on page 456 of RONR: "Administrative Duties of the President of a Society. All of the duties of the presiding officer described above relate to the function of presiding over the assembly at its meetings. In addition, in many organized societies, the president has duties as an administrative or executive officer; but these are outside the scope of parliamentary law, and the president has such authority only insofar as the bylaws provide it."
  3. Yesterday
  4. Guest

    Chair Executive Authority

    I think you have found a rather unclear example in the book. As far as RONR is concerned, the chairman has power only in regard to the conduct of meetings. Perhaps we are meant to surmise that this chair has administrative powers defined in the bylaws, or that the motion contains instructions to the treasurer and secretary. I don't see anything in RONR which suggests that the chairman can direct officers to perform tasks outside of the meeting.
  5. No. In fact, a competent chair should ask for such details while the motion to create the committee is pending, not after it has been adopted.
  6. Should he first wait to see if such motions are offered? Thanks, Richard.
  7. How much leeway does the Chair have in interpreting the required action of a passed motion? Example, top of Page 121. In response to a passed motion, the chair requires the treasurer to write a check, and the secretary to write a cover letter. But the motion said nothing about a cover letter. This example, I realize, is trivial, but it illustrates my question.
  8. Yes. In fact, he should do so if it is not already included in the adopted motion and if no other member does so. Edited to add: See pages 168 - 176 regarding the motion to Commit or Refer
  9. Example: A motion has passed requiring the formation of a new committee. Can the chair then solicit motions regarding how to form the new committee (election or appointment, size, manner of election), or must he wait for the floor to offer such motions?
  10. Richard Brown

    Outside facilitator

    Possibly. It depends primarily on your bylaws. If your organization as a whole elects the Board (usually at the annual general membership meeting) and then the Board selects the officers, the officers do not have to be board members or even members of the organization unless your bylaws require it. A complete outsider can be elected president or to any other office unless your bylaws require that officers be members of the society and/or the board. However, an such non-member officers will not have a vote on the board and may or may not be entitled to even attend board meetings, depending on your bylaws. The board may permit them to attend and participate (but not vote), but that is different from having the right to attend. If the bylaws say the president shall preside at board meetings, then he has a right to attend them, but that provision doesn't apply to the other officers except possibly the vice president if the president is absent. If your bylaws say there shall be an executive committee consisting of the four officers, then it is my opinion that any "outsiders" who are officers are by definition members of the executive committee.... but not of the board.... and may vote at executive committee meetings. Let me add, though, that the likelihood of outsiders being elected as officers is probably remote, but it does happen. If you want your officers to be members of the organization and/or the board, your bylaws should say so.... or just don't elect someone who isn't a member. Just because someone is a candidate or has been nominated doesn't mean that anyone has to vote for that person.
  11. Guest

    Outside facilitator

    Interesting. I've made an assumption because historically officers have always been board members in this organization. There are no specifications that I can find regarding officers being members of the board of director in our bylaws or articles of incorporation. So, If the officers are not board members they can participate in appropriate sections of the meeting (or the case of the president, chair the meeting) without having the power a director/board member has to vote? "ARTICLE VII: Duties of Officers Section 7.1: Duties of President The President shall: (1) Preside over all meetings of the Association and the Board of Directors; (2) perform all acts and duties usually performed by an executive and presiding officer; and (3) sign all papers of the Association as she/he may be authorized or directed to sign by the Board of Directors. The President shall perform such other duties as may be prescribed by the Board of Directors. Section 7.2: Duties of the Vice President In the absence or disability of the President, the Vice President shall perform the duties of the President. Section 7.3: Duties of the Secretary The Secretary shall: (1) take all minutes of all Annual, Special, and Board meetings; (2) co-sign all papers of the Association as she/he may be authorized or directed to co-sign by the Board of Directors. Section 7.4: Duties of the Treasurer The Treasurer will make periodic inspections of the books and records of the financial transactions of the association. He/she will present a summary of the financial standings of the Association to the Board of Directors at regular meetings. The Treasurer will ensure that the services of a competent and disinterested public auditor or accountant are secured for annual review and report on the financial records."
  12. jstackpo

    Executive Session

    If there are "open meeting" laws, or equivalent, file a lawsuit (if you are of the litigious sort), or at least threaten to do so. But be sure you have grounds to do so, and standing, I suppose. (Non-Lawyer typing here. Check with a real one.)
  13. Guest

    Outside facilitator

    The officers only have to be board members if your bylaws say so.
  14. Guest

    Outside facilitator

    "Section 8.2 The Executive Committee shall consist of the President, Vice-President, Secretary, and Treasurer. Any action by the Executive Committee shall require the affirmative vote of at least three of its members and must be reported to, and ratified by, the Board of Directors at their next meeting." Although I believe I was mistaken that officers/executive committe must be board members. As I interpret it, officers are are board members with the exception of if they are offboarding... Then the period of time in between the general meeting and board meeting where officers elected, they are officers but no longer board members. Does that logic stand?
  15. Richard Brown

    Executive Session

    I agree with Mr Katz. If this is a public school board, it is almost certainly considered a public body and is likewise almost certainly covered by your state's open meetings laws (sunshine laws) or some other authority which has a higher ranking than RONR. Those laws usually include restrictions on when the body can go into executive session and they also often prohibit votes from being taken in executive session.
  16. Joshua Katz

    Executive Session

    So far as RONR is concerned, an assembly may enter executive session whenever it decides it is appropriate, and non-members have no means at their disposal to dispute the decision. However, since you are talking about a public body, there are quite likely applicable state or local laws on the topic, which would supersede the rules in RONR.
  17. Edward Sheridan

    Executive Session

    Hello! I’m brand new to parliamentary procedure, so I apologize in advance for any misconceptions I may have. I have a question in regards to the grounds for the use of an executive session. The setting is a public school board meeting in Texas. The board has attracted the ire of many parents in its jurisdiction, and they have noticed that the board goes into executive session quite often when conducting day-to-day administration. The perception is that executive session is being used inappropriately. I have two questions: 1) What are established grounds for the use of exective session? 2) What means would the public have at its disposal to dispute the frequent use of exective session? Thank you in advance for your input.
  18. Does the board the trial body for the member? Is board action required to begin to process the charge?
  19. In principle, I agree. A rule in the bylaws, even one that is not in the nature of a rule of order, may provide for its own suspension (p. 13, ll. 5-9, p. 263, ll. 4-5). A rule that said, "Only full members may vote, unless the assembly, by a three-fifths vote, suspends this rule," would permit the assembly to suspend the rule and permit persons other than full members to vote. Such a suspension would not "amend" the bylaws. Likewise, a rule that said, without additional qualification, that the assembly may "suspend any of the rules, including the rules of order, for the consideration of any item of business," means that the assembly has the ability to suspend any rule. I will, however, reserve judgment in this case. While we are told that there the exceptions, we do not know what these exceptions are. There may be something, even in another section of the bylaws, that might create an exception and prohibit the rule relating to who can vote from being suspended in this instance. I will slightly disagree with my colleague Richard's claim that a motion to suspend the rules would necessarily be undebatable in all circumstances. The motion to suspend the rules could be raised as an incidental main motion and, as such, be debatable (p. 74, ll. 17-23).
  20. Richard Brown

    Outside facilitator

    That sentence is causing me a little concern. Do your bylaws actually say that there is an executive committee and that it consists of those officers or does your organization only "consider" them to be an executive committee? There is no executive committee unless it is provided for in the bylaws.
  21. Then I don't see any obstacles to adopting a special rule of order limiting speeches to 3 minutes.
  22. Richard Brown

    Motion to Suspend the Rules

    It seems to me that before we can opine much on Guest Jon's "rule" that any rule can be suspended, it is imperative that we know whether that rule is in the bylaws. I asked him that question in my post above which is the fourth comment in this thread, but he has not responded. I also asked him to tell us what documents the other rules he referred to are in. Responding to another of guest John's questions, a motion to suspend the rules is not debatable. However, if all of the rules can be suspended, then I suppose the rule that says a point of order is not debatable can also be suspended and this business of suspending the rules can go on ad infinitum. As long as RONR is being followed, however, it is not suspendable. If a member has a question about the effect of suspending a rule, I suppose he could make a parliamentary inquiry or a request for information.
  23. Thank you for your responses. I haven't been able to find the five minute rule anywhere; it just seems like "tradition". My thought is it was randomly assigned.
  24. Joshua Katz

    Motion to Suspend the Rules

    I agree that the organization's rules take precedence, and certainly interpreting them is a task for the organization, not for me. But in my personal opinion, the provision quoted simply states the same rule as is present in RONR, other than the voting provisions. That is, just as RONR provides, they can be suspended only for the purpose of considering an item of business. This suspension was not in pursuit of considering an item of business. There was no item of business which the assembly could not consider without suspending the rules. But, again, that's just my opinion.
  25. Josh Martin

    Motion to Suspend the Rules

    Mr. Katz, I certainly concur that, so far as RONR is concerned, the rules in question may not be suspended. We are told, however, that the organization has its own rules on this subject, which provide that any of the organization’s rules may be suspended, except for certain exceptions, and this is not one of the exceptions. It would seem to me that the organization’s rule takes precedence.
  26. Weldon Merritt

    Meeting never adjourned

    I concur with Mr. Brown, and will add that even without a formal motion or declaeration of adjournment, if everyone left, the meeting effectively was adjourned by unanimous consent.
  1. Load more activity
×