Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

J. J.

Members
  • Posts

    5,492
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by J. J.

  1. I think you just, effectively, developed such an IMM. That is a compliment, BTW. As I said, I would rule your initial motion out of order if the intent was not to rescind. I would treat the first one as possibly a 23:6 b violation.
  2. Unless the body can compel attendance, the member can leave at any point. Under RONR, an absence is an absence. You question regarding a public body is likely one of statute and you should look there.
  3. Words do mean something, and if you are asking for the assembly to rule something out of order and void, you have to use the word "rule" or something close to it. That said, I think you have demonstrated how a point of order could be raised as an incidental main motion.
  4. Notice protects absentee rights, in general. I would permit unnoticed items to be considered if there were no absentees. That said, if this a local government, there is almost certainly is statute covering this. That would supersede RONR.
  5. I am seeing enough of a distinction, in the phrasing of the motion. Much may be said in debate that may not be accurate and would not, properly, be recorded. If you were attempting to have the assembly adopt the motion, "I move that the rule adopted on February 1, 2024, requiring applicants for membership to pay an initiation fee of $50.00 be declared null and void," and the intent was to declare some action void because it violated the bylaws, I would rule the motion out of order because of vagueness. I would suggest something like, "I move that the assembly rules that the rule adopted on February 1, 2024, requiring applicants for membership to pay an initiation fee of $50.00, be null and void, as it violates (citation) of the bylaws." Very clearly, the assembly can rule on this.
  6. An amendment that makes the adoption of a question equivalent to rejecting it is out of order (12:22 2), but that applies to any form of amendment, note merely substitution.
  7. No, I would have a problem if someone claimed this was actually a motion to rescind (and required a higher vote threshold). Even this motion, as worded, could be a back door method to rescind that motion of 2/1/24 by less than the vote threshold required. (I would note that if some form of a point of order could be raised as an incidental main motion, that would address this.)
  8. I agree, but I am asking why (or how) you would distinguish been a R/ASPA and a Point of Order.
  9. And how would that not fall under the rules for rescind/amend something previously adopted? 6:23 does not cover it specifically.
  10. No, though they possibly could move to rescind it at the next meeting.
  11. J. J.

    Nominations

    Yes, and no. A nomination could be ruled out of order because the mover is no a member, but only at the time of the nomination. If the point of order was not make at the time, it is too late to raise it (23:6).
  12. J. J.

    Nominations

    The rule requiring that only members can make motion, even suggestions, could be suspended. If a nomination was made by someone not entitled to vote, and there was no timely point of order, the nomination itself could not be challenged at a later point on that ground.
  13. I said sharing it does not violate executive session. A claim could be made that distributing this material disturbs the well-being of the society and charge the member with that (63:24).
  14. Nothing in RONR would prevent it. A separate set of minutes would be created for the executive session. They would be approved in executive session.
  15. The subject of the letter, the accused, was not in the executive session. I question how anyone can claim that the accused could violate an executive session of which he did not attend, and, apparently, had no right to attend. That said, it would be possible to bring an additional charge against the accused, though not for violating executive session in this regard.
  16. I'm not sure that this rule could be suspended. Authorization would have to be given by the parent body.
  17. I disagree. A member can be punished for his actions, if it is felt that the actions "disturbs the well-being" of the society. However, that will involve forming an investigating committee that may recommend charges, a new set of charges. The member could be acquitted on the first set and found guilty on the second.
  18. I am saying that it is not in executive session.
  19. The answer is still the same. The assembly must be in session to have an executive session. The committee can meet in executive session as well. Go back and re-read my answers.
  20. I'm not disagreeing. This actually came up about a fortnight ago.
  21. The matter may reached by using the motion Discharge a Committee (36).
  22. Could the organization adopt special rules of order that apply to the next convention?
×
×
  • Create New...