Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

J. J.

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by J. J.

  1. J. J.

    Discipline and Removal

    That was one of the things that I was thinking about in the question. Mr. Martin effectively answered it (for me) before I asked it.
  2. After being named by the chair, the assembly orders Mr. D to leave the hall for the duration of the meeting. Mr. Z refuses to leave. The chair, fearing a lawsuit, does not wish to appoint a committee to remove the member. He wishes to have the police brought in to remove the member. Question 1: May the chair call the police and direct them to remove the member or does the assembly have to vote to have the police brought in to remove the member? Question 2a: If the chair may do so on his own, may his decision be appealed? Question 2b: If a vote of the assembly is needed, is such a motion debatable? (I would say that if a vote was needed, the chair states the question as, "Should the police be called to remove Mr. Z?")
  3. First, I agree completely, in terms of notice. There is something here that isn't mentioned, and can tie into Guest's comment. The motion will have to be stated to become pending. For instance, a singular amendment to strike out that article, for example Article XX, will have to be stated as, "I move to strike out Article XX." If the notice included Article XIX and a the current Article XXI renumbered as Article XX, it is clear that the amendment would remove the current Article XX, and there is sufficient notice to strike out Article XX.
  4. J. J.

    Discipline and Removal

    Filing charges would be one of those "necessary measures" to enforce the removal order. The assembly gave the chair the authority to call the police when it voted to remove Mr. Z (with "Mr. D" being an alias).
  5. J. J.

    Voting Between 3 Options

    I agree that suspension is not possible if this is more than one question pending at the time. I was thinking of something a bit different. The rules are suspended to permit each budget to be pending in sequence. Plan A would become pending an open to debate and amendment. Same for Plan B and then Plan C. Only one plan would open for debate and amendment at a time. When they are finished with Plan C, the chair puts the question on Plan A. If Plan A is adopted, the other two plans are dropped. If Plan A is defeated, the assembly moves to Plan B, et cetera. I think the rules could be suspended to permit that, but I don't see too much value in doing so. I agree that a special rule could override the one person one vote rule; I also agree that a special rule of order could be time limited. I also agree that the rules that are subject to suspension may be suspended for the remainder of the session. There does have to be a distinction between the two, which wasn't emphasized. A motion "that no main motion shall be amended," is effectively a motion to suspend the rules for the session, which would take a 2/3 vote. A motion, "that all the budgets plans be permitted to be pending at same time, for the remainder of the meeting," could only be adopted as a special rule of order, and would need a 2/3 vote with notice, or a majority of the entire membership. There can be greater problems as well. The distinction does need to be clearly spelled out.
  6. J. J.

    Discipline and Removal

    Definitely not on the 29th.
  7. J. J.

    Release board documents to non board member

    The resigning treasurer needed permission to read the letter; it should have been objected to at that point. Also, the language was improper to use in speaking. Unless the board orders the text of the letter to be entered into the minutes, the text should be, at most, "[Name] submitted his resignation as Treasurer, which was accepted." Finally, the Board can order a copy be made for the member requesting the letter, but the requester has no right to have a copy. A meeting of the general membership could order a copy be made by a 2/3 vote, a vote of the majority of the entire membership, or by a majority vote with notice.
  8. J. J.

    Voting Between 3 Options

    I think I agree with your position. One question that I have is if the rules could be suspended to permit using filling blanks? Why couldn't someone move one of the budgets and the assembly just use the regular amendment process? One other point, a few have talked about the possibility of no plan getting a majority under filling blanks. I think that could be the case with any option.
  9. Just following up on this, would they be general orders and/or special orders?
  10. J. J.

    Suspension question

    The former vice chair, now chair, did effectively resign when called for the election of a new chair (assuming that there was no vice chair). It is possible to resign upon the election of the successor. Notice would have to be given and it would depend what the "policy" was that was suspended. The question is not so much when the term of the officers starts but if this board can fill vacancies. Mary, the chair before Joe, resigns. Joe the former vice chair and now chair, calls the meeting (as so provided in the bylaws) and gives notice that the assembly will elect a new chair. Joe effectively resigns. Pete is elected chair at the May meeting. Pete's term begins when elected ; his term will expire whenever the fiscal year ends. Pete is serving the remainder of Mary's term. When the fiscal year ends, Pete's term will end.
  11. It depends on what powers the board is granted in your bylaws. If it is possible, the motion would be to rescind.
  12. J. J.

    Conceptual Review

    Could you define what a "conceptual review" is?
  13. As a matter of bylaw interpretation, if the bylaws gave the board general authority to act between, and then said that board could do X, I would treat that as giving the board the exclusive authority to do X based on pp. 589-90, #4. That said, the assembly has the final authority in interpreting that bylaw. They may decide that they can do X or reverse the board's action on X.
  14. J. J.

    Roll Call Voting

    I agree with your conclusion and would base it on the rules for interpretation #4, pp. 589-90. These rules are stated to apply equally, in addition to the bylaws, to "other rules and documents adopted by the organization (p. 588, ll. 20-23)." The general rule is that the chair will not vote in order preserve impartiality. The specific rule is that the chair will enforce the instructions of a constituent body upon its delegates, if the chair has received official notice of those instructions (p. 606, ll. 18-21). I will also note that the vote of a delegate, when properly instructed, does not necessarily represent the personal opinion of the delegate. A delegate who is not an officer, may be instructed to vote "yes" on a motion. He may be personally opposed to adopting the motion, and, assuming he didn't make the motion, but he could speak against it or offer hostile amendments. Voting on the motion, when so instructed, would not indicate that the chair holds the same personal position as his vote would indicate. I think there is a strong case for your position.
  15. J. J.

    Roll Call Voting

    I think that the rules of order dictate that it violates the rule that the presiding officer is impartial if he votes, except by ballot or if it effects the result. A president* that votes would violate that rule. After the vote is cast, a point of order could be raise that the president should not vote. The point should be properly well taken that the president violated the rule that he be impartial, but that his vote was valid. There are two substantive effects of this: A. The president could be subject to disciplinary action for violating the duty of office that he impartial. Admittedly, that would be very unlikely. B. If the motion would be subject to reconsideration, a legitimate point of order could be raised that the president has shown partiality in regard to the question and should vacate the chair while the question is pending. If the was a special rule permitting the president to vote in all, or some additional, cases, or if the rule requiring impartiality to the extended to the president voting in this situation were suspended, there would no problem. *Assuming that the president is a member and that this in small board in this example.
  16. It starts with an assumption, "the meeting is not valid." That assumption may or may not be the case in this situation and that is begging the question. I can understand the idea that this was not a properly called meeting, but I also understand that the assembly can look at these bylaws and believe that this applies only to absentees. As to an objection from the membership meeting, that is possible, but that same assembly may agree with the board's interpretation. Under the bylaws, the membership may not even have the ability to deal with this issue. There is more than sufficient ambiguity is this bylaw. Does the 5 day notice bylaw exist to establish what constitutes a "properly called meeting" or only to serve as protection for the rights of absentees? Being able to phrase the question that way shows that there is ambiguity Then we come down to the bylaw question. Does this violate the notice requirement in the bylaws for special meeting? You can argue that. You can also argue that if everyone attends the meeting a bylaw amendment could not be legitimately adopted, even if everyone favors its consideration at that meeting. The question comes down to if the notice requirement a necessary part of holding a special meeting or if it exists only to protect absentee rights. I can see a group legitimately reaching either conclusion, absent of some really specific language in the bylaws. In this case, we are faced with the group that has reached a conclusion (I may not have reached the same conclusion prior to the assembly's decision).
  17. This comment begs the question. It is saying that this meeting could not be properly called, because it is not properly called. The assembly has determined that the bylaw exists to protect absentees and is not applicable when there are no absentees and when no one objects. There is an FPPL that action can only be taken at a properly called meeting, but this group has determined that this is a properly called meeting. Firstly, the assembly is the group that ultimately gets to make this interpretation when there is an ambiguity (p. 588, ll. 25-33). That there are multiple viewpoints on this indicates that there something that is not clear. As a side point of this, the assembly may have put the notice requirement sole intent to protect absentees, and not for any other purpose. (When I put a notice requirement into the bylaws, I do it solely for the purpose of protecting absentees. I do not have the intent of establishing notice to define what is a properly called meeting.) Secondly, so far as I can tell, this is a reasonable interpretation. In the scenario, the assembly has determined unanimously, that this a reasonable interpretation. I would say that a reasonable interpretation of a clause requiring notice for a meeting is to protect absentees. It is to assure that a subgroup could not meet and claim to act on behalf of the society. The rest of the argument that Josh put forward is dependent on this not being a properly called meeting. The assembly has determined that this is a properly called meeting.
  18. I don't agree that is beside the point. The question is can the assembly effectively suspend this requirement? Can they make meeting valid? Well, they couldn't if it violated the right of absentees. Can the assembly look at this situation and decide, with the consent of everyone, that they are empowered to meet in this circumstance? I would have to conclude that: 1. They can decide that they are empowered to meet. 2. Even if, on a metaphysical level, the assembly does not have the ability to meet in this circumstance, there is no way to enforce that view, because everyone agrees that this assembly can meet under the circumstance. Here is a second case under the same rules: The president is incommunicado; he is out of town. The rest of the members call the meeting and give 6 days notice. Three days after this notice is sent, the president returns. He sees an absolute need for the special meeting, and approves of what the members did. Neither he, nor any other member, objects to the special meeting being held. Is this special meeting valid?