Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'parliamentary authority'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • RONR Message Board – Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised
    • General Discussion
    • Advanced Discussion
    • The Robert’s Rules Website
  • About the Message Board
    • Questions or Comments about the Message Board


There are no results to display.

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Found 7 results

  1. Article VI of the By Laws for my incorporated Homeowners Association, "Parliamentary Authority," is missing the "not" found in the RONR model - "The rules contained in the current issue of Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised shall govern the proceedings of the Association in all cases in which they are inconsistent with these Bylaws or those of the Articles of Incorporation." (emphasis added) ... i.e., versus the more logical model, "in which they are not inconsistent" (emphasis again added) At the very least, this seems to set up an endless loop with respect to parliamentary authority itself: our bylaws defer to RONR, which defers to our bylaws, which defer to RONR, et cetera. As crucial if not more so, since our bylaws are near-silent on removal of a Board director, this parliamentary authority construction of ours seems to point us very heavily to Chapter XX of RONR (11th ed.) . . . which was completely ignored by the Board in an effort this past month to remove one of our directors from the Board. Back to our bylaw on Parliamentary Authority, I have two questions -- (1) As it stands, does our bylaw on Parliamentary Authority even have any force whatsoever, since it seems openly inconsistent with RONR, but then by its own terms would itself be stating that RONR is thereby applicable . . . ? (2) If we were to decide to "correct" this particular bylaw to include the missing "not," would we need to go through the full process usually required for amendment of a bylaw? or can a case be made that ours is an error as obvious as a misspelled word or a missing comma (although even those errors are not necessarily incidental)?
  2. Hi - I submitted a bylaw proposal to change bylaws to recommended language in Robert's Rules such that the parliamentary law (Robert's Rules) upgrades whenever there is a new edition, automatically. Conventions are every four years in August. This year 2015, 2019, 2023, 2027, 2031, 2035, 2039, 2043, 2047, 2051, 2055, 2059, etc. Q: Do the Robert's Rules editors ever plan on releasing a new edition on a year other than the 10's / decades, (ie instead of 2020, you'd change it 2019? or instead of 2030, you'd change it 2031)? What might I tell these backwards folks to move them from their irrational position? The lame rejection reason was no update to latest edition because : "by changing from the 10th edition to the current addition(sic), this could complicate the proceedings. If Robert's Rulesof Order issues a new edition shortly before a convention,the convention would be bound by this new edition which maynot be widely known"
  3. If a President or a Board of Directors does not follow RONR even though the organization has specified RONR as its parliamentary authority in its bylaws, can the President and/or the individuals be sued separately from the organization? We have some members of the Board of Directors saying they do not have to follow RONR in general. They are not getting approval for exceptions to RONR. They basically just want to do whatever they want.
  4. A vote was taken. There were 81 people present on the spreadsheet to attend and who did attend. Three of those were guests (nonmembers) who were counted as a "no" in the official calculations. Six people did not want to vote and abstained. The number of actual voters who cast a ballot was 72 out of 81 present. The counted vote tally was 49 yes for revision to 23 no on the first bylaw. The counted vote tally was 50 to 22 on the 2nd bylaw. The results were calculated with a denominator of 81 instead of 72 (the actual votes) to determine a 2/3 majority. The president and parliamentarian calculated the math according to those present despite the fact that they were calculating the nonmembers and abstentions as a "no" vote. I as a member think this is totally wrong. Now here is our Newcomer bylaw in regard to parliamentary authority. Article XIII-Parliamentary Authority The rules contained in Robert's Rules Of Order (Newly Revised) shall govern the Club except where they conflict with the By-Laws or the special rules of the Club. Now here is the bylaw regarding amendments. Article XIV-Amendments The By-Laws may be amended at any General Luncheon meeting of the Club by a two-thirds wmajority affirmative vote of those present. I am asking you as an expert what is correct in this situation. I see no conflict and there were no special rules of the club. How should this ? I am disputing the results of the president and parliamentarian and asking the whole board of directors to vote on the validity of the results of the vote calculation. Thank you for weighing in on this dispute. Robert's Rules Vote Validity Submission.html
  5. Our bylaws state "The rules contained in the current edition of Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised shall govern the Association in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with the Articles of Incorporation, these Bylaws, and any special rules of order the Association may adopt." Under "Admendment of Bylaws", the bylaws state: "At the Annual Meeting, the Bylaws Committee Chairperson will explain each proposed Bylaw amendment, and the members in attendance will vote "yes" or "no" with no changes permitted at that time." We are having a disagreement on whether the bylaws committee can make some "minor" changes in the wording of a proposed bylaw amendment when it is presented to the membership at the annual.meeting tomorrow. Notice requirements for the original amendment were met. One side says that the changed wording would be within the scope of the original amendment, the other side says our Bylaws supersede RONR and "no changes permitted at that time" means exactly what it says. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
  6. If an assembly adopts RONR as its parliamentary authority (in the bylaws), are the boards and standing committees that are listed in the bylaws also compelled to use RONR as their parliamentary authority, or are they free to conduct business in the manner they choose?
  7. The bylaws of our church society stipulate the following: There is no other mention of a Parliamentary Authority. This seems to me potentially dangerous. I can understand why the assembly, at some point in the past, might have been reluctant to enforce a particular set of rules (e.g. lack of members well-versed in parliamentary procedure, fear that things not done "by the book" might be invalid, fear that those well-versed in PP might use it to gain advantage over those who are not), but it seems like this wording could cause a lot of problems. I'd like to propose that we explicitly adopt RONR as our PA, but I'm not sure how to allay the fears listed above. Any suggestions?