Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

All Activity

This stream auto-updates

  1. Yesterday
  2. Yes it is, and Thank you the listed section was very helpful.
  3. For background see: United States v. Ballin, et al., 144 U.S. 1 (1892) Evan, William J., “Is Parliamentary Law ‘Law’,” National Parliamentarian, 42 (1981), no. 1, 7-9.
  4. Article I, Section 5, of the United States Constitution defines the quorum in each house to do business as a majority of the members. This requirement does not change and cannot be suspended.
  5. Before then, someone refusing to vote was considered not present for the purpose of a quorum. Although then it was simply not saying anything. So what would happen is, and I am simplifying the numbers, 48 vote yea, 1 votes nay, 51 abstain or are not present. Doesn't pass because only 49 of the 100 are "present". Then someone makes a quorum call and 51 don't answer or try to leave the hall thus no quorum. On January 29, 1890 after such a disappearing quorum vote, Speaker Reed locked the doors and ordered to clerk to record everyone in the room as present, which resulted in Representatives complaining that they weren't really there. However, the motion in question ultimately passed 162-3-163 with 179 needed for quorum. The rule abolishing the disappearing quorum became a House Rule on February 6, 1890.
  6. Well, that's interesting. I still don't think you get out of allowing nominations by screwing up in March, but it says what it says. My thought is that nominations can still be reopened by motion, though. I don't think that's what we're saying. I don't see how what you said is different from Mr. Honemann's summary.
  7. I think he is referring to the former practice wherein a member who did not respond to call of the roll was not counted as being present for purposes of determining a quorum.
  8. Mr. Honemann, good point. It is not as clear as it should be. The intent of the bylaw is to say that if there is more than one candidate (or nominee) per office, in other words, multiple candidates for one office, there will be a written ballot vote. If there is a tie between candidates nominated, there will be a second written ballot vote taken. We will need to have our bylaw committee work on the wording of our bylaws in the coming months. Thank you...again...
  9. The minutes should be as accurate as possible, and if I were the person whose name was misspelled, I wood want it corrected. But how to do it depends on where you are in the process. Three scenarios: 1. If the draft minutes have not yet been presented for approval, and you are the secretary simply make the correction before presenting them. 2. If it's the next meeting and approval of the minutes is at hand, you (or any member) may propose the correction, which I assume would be non-controversial. 3. If the minutes have already been approved, they still can be corrected by means of a Motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted. That's a bit more complicated, and I don't want to go into the details unless that's you situation. If it is, let us know and we can provide more guidance.
  10. To whom and to which comment are you responding? That’s what the “quote” feature is for! So, help us out here: what was the voting “present” rule in Congress before February 9, 1890 and what is it now? What effect did it have on calculating the presence of a quorum then and what effect does it have on that now?
  11. Our previous HOA Board voted to approve a large project and put it in this year’s Budget. The new Budget with the project had to be approved by a simple majority of residents at the Annual HOA Meeting. The new Budget with the project was approved by the residents. The President of the new Board is the same person who is now President of the new Board. They claim, on their own, that the project is not approved and has to be approved by the new Board consisting of two new members. This is the same President who called for the vote to put the project into the new Budget and called for the vote for approval of all residents for the Budget. There have been no new motions, only the President changing a legitimate vote. I believe this is a gross violation of Roberts Rules and I am looking for a way to reinstitute the project. Any ideas? Thank You
  12. "Section 2: The candidates shall be elected by voice vote. If there is more than one person nominated for office, there will be a written (ballot) vote. In the event of a tie, another written (ballot) vote will be taken." This is a rather interesting provision. What it means to me is that (a), if there is only one nominee for an office that nominee should be declared elected by acclamation, and (b), if there is more than one nominee for an office, a ballot vote must be taken to determine who will be elected. On no occasion will a voice vote actually be taken.
  13. Perhaps you should have asked the person or persons conducting these meetings.
  14. Is the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order your parliamentary authority? If so, take a look at 23:7 and see if it doesn't answer your question.
  15. In several NAP training meetings I've learned that officials who have been elected to represent the will of constituents cannot abstain from voting. Where can I find this rule in RONR (12th ed.) or under what authority is this a rule?
  16. If you misspell a name by putting in an 'E' instead of an "I", do you have to change the minutes and do you have to list the issue in the next meeting's minutes?
  17. Question: Is there any time a member of a body, in this case a Student Senate Senator, be prevented or barred from voting? Situation Simplified: My friend a Student Senator was "impeached" by his student Senate where there were 9 yeas and 4 Nos with 2 abstentions (a member who left and my friend were not counted in abstentions), this reached the necessary 2/3rds of members present and voting required but my friend was not allowed to vote during the secret ballot and was made to leave the chamber for the ballot. He has to be convicted by the Student Supreme Court. No rule in the Constitution, Bylaws, Rules of Order, or special rules clarify any time a senator can be denied voting ability or removal from the chamber save for unruliness. If he was present he would have voted No, of course, and thus it would have been 9 - 5 which is NOT 2/3rds and would have resulted in Exonneration. Could this be deemed grounds for dismissal in his court?
  18. Thank you all for your advice. Not to belabor the point, but for clarity, this is what the bylaws literally say: Article VI - Nominations Section 5: A. The slate of officers projected by the Nominating Committee will be presented to the general membership. However, nominations (approved by the nominee prior to nomination) may be made from the floor at the March general meeting prior to election in April. ARTICLE VII – ELECTIONS Section 1: The officers of the Council shall be elected by membership at the General Meeting in April. Section 2: The candidates shall be elected by voice vote. If there is more than one person nominated for office, there will be a written (ballot) vote. In the event of a tie, another written (ballot) vote will be taken. Section 3: Newly elected Officers shall be installed in May and assume their duties at the final Board meeting in May. Your posts have given me all I need to proceed with these issues in terms of advising the President. What I hear you all saying between the lines is to use common sense and reasoning instead of adhering to the letter of the law. It would be very easy to get legalistic here. I'll keep that in mind going forward as new issues and complexities are encountered. Thank you again for your expertise and knowledge - this is a wonderful Forum!!!!
  19. I do agree that it would be an administrative rule, and require notice, but I do also agree that it is not crystal clear. Ironically, if this had been referred to a committee, I would have been more likely to say that it was in order without notice.
  20. Thank you. Based upon these facts, I am inclined to agree that the resignations were never pending before the assembly and were properly withdrawn. As a consequence, there were no longer any resignations for the Chair, the Executive Committee, or anyone else to act upon, and it's not really necessary to address the question of whether the Executive Committee had the authority to act for the board in this matter, or whether the Executive Committee can vote via e-mail. The Chair appears at one point to claim that the Chair, acting alone, accepted the resignations, but does not seem to point to anything granting him the authority to do this. And there does not appear to be any dispute that the resignations were withdrawn prior to the Executive Committee acting in this matter. I agree that the chair omits important information from the rule in question. "Is it possible to withdraw a resignation after it has been submitted? A resignation is a Request to Be Excused from a Duty. It may be withdrawn in the same manner as any motion may be withdrawn—that is to say, before the proposed resignation has been placed before the assembly by the chair stating the question on its acceptance, it may be withdrawn without the consent of the assembly, but it may not be withdrawn without permission of the assembly once it has been placed before the assembly for its approval. [RONR (12th ed.) 32:1–8, 33:12–18.]" FAQ #18, emphasis added In the circumstances described, the resignation was never "placed before the assembly by the chair stating the question on its acceptance" (or at least, not until after the resignations had already been withdrawn), and therefore, the resignation could be withdrawn unilaterally by the person who originally submitted the resignation.
  21. Thank you. Assuming no such requirement already exists for the organization, I am inclined to think that imposing such a requirement, even if applied only to the present meeting, is not a motion that "that may arise in connection with the transaction of such business or the conduct of the meeting." I may have originally been led astray by the question being phrased as "Would a motion regarding the timeframe for completing meeting minutes be exempt from notice requirements?" The timeframe for preparation of the meeting minutes seems connected to their approval, since the minutes cannot be approved until they are prepared. A motion relating to the manner of distribution for the minutes, however, seems more in the nature of an administrative rule than a parliamentary one.
  22. Of what? The Chair is wrong. I'm going to choose not to get into this. Well this is not great language, and so your organization will have to wrestle with what the EC may do. In the long run, the language should be amended. Do your bylaws allow email voting? If so, what do they say about procedure? I'm in no position to sort out the facts or determine if there was deceit, and in any case that's not a parliamentary question.
  23. It seems that in my attempt to simplify this confusing situation I have muddied the waters even further. I will try to me more clear by laying out the timeline. In September there was a highly charged meeting were several members stated they were not happy with the way the Executive Committee was making all the decisions and the Executive Board of 44 were not allowed to participate. Nothing was brought before the Executive Board for a vote. Admittedly, the Executive Board members should have been more assertive but, in their defense, the Chair is an intimidating person and most just went along. Not wanting to continue battling with the Chair, the Vice Chair stood and stated that she was resigning. Additionally, the Membership Chair stood and expressed his disappointment and that he was resigning from his position as Membership Chair. A third Executive Board member stated he would leave if things continued along the same path. At no time during this meeting did anyone, including the Chair, make a motion to accept a resignation. The balance of the meeting was spent with different Executive Board members voicing their opinions and asking questions. The meeting was adjourned. The next day the Vice Chair, at the request of several members, rescinded her resignation. However the Chair stated he had already accepted her resignation. The Chair also stated he was accepting the resignation of the other two elected Board Members. Keep in mind that the Membership Chair simply resigned his Committee Chair position not his Board seat. The third accepted resignation never happened. It was simply this board member expressing his disappointment. Our bylaws do not address how resignations are to accepted. The Chair points to RONR to justify his actions but omits the substance of the rule. The Chair sends out an email to the body stating: None of the accepted resignations have been previously properly withdrawn. The official interpretations of Robert’s Rules of Order states a resignation “may be withdrawn in the same manner as any motion may be withdrawn”. RR 33:12 and RR 33:13 describe the process for a member to withdraw a motion. None of the accepted resignations have been previously properly withdrawn in accordance with RR 33;12 The Chair intentionally omits the substance of the rule. a resignation is a Request to Be Excused from a Duty. It “may be withdrawn in the same manner as any motion may be withdrawn”. —before the proposed resignation has been placed before the assembly by the chair stating the question on its acceptance, it may be withdrawn without the consent of the assembly, but it may not be withdrawn without permission of the assembly once it has been placed before the assembly for its approval. [RONR (12th ed.) 32:1–8, 33:12–18.] The Chair has now expressed to the Executive Board that because the "resignations" were not properly withdrawn, the Board can accept the resignations. However, instead of bringing it to the Board in a regular monthly meeting the Chair decides that the Executive Committee will act on behalf of the Board. Our bylaws state: Section 4: Executive Committee The term "Executive Committee" as used in this provision, and elsewhere in these bylaws, shall not be construed as interchangeable with the executive committee referenced in Article I Section 1. For the purposes of these bylaws, the Executive Committee shall refer to, and consist only of, the Board's four elected Officers. This Executive Committee shall have the authority to act on behalf of the Board in matters which preclude the Board from direct involvement due to matters of confidentiality or expediency but shall be accountable to the Board for its actions. On December 4th @ 10 o'clock at night the Secretary sends out an email vote to the 3 members of the Executive Committee (the Treasurer has resigned). Do you accept the resignation of the Vice Chair Yes or No Do you accept the resignation of Executive Board Member xxx Yes or No Do you accept the resignation of Executive Board Member xxxxx Yes or No The Chair and Secretary both vote yes The Vice Chair does not vote The Secretary then sends out an email to the body that the 3 resignations have been accepted via email using section 4 of the bylaws. The bylaws do not expand on what is expediency however the Chair would not call a meeting for over 90 days so there obviously was no reason to act on behalf of the Board when we simply could have taken a vote at an in-person meeting. The Chair did not want a meeting as the Board would have sided against his decision. but here we are told that the Chair unilaterally accepted resignations, and are provided with a snippet from the bylaws apparently referring to this committee's authority but ending with "but must be held accountable to the Board for his actions". Unfortunately, a "snippit" is really all there is to Section 4 regarding the Executive Committee's ability to act on behalf of the Board. I mistakenly used his when I should have said the Executive Committee which consisted of the Chair, Secretary and Vice Chair. Hopefully, the above explanation clears that up. In this layman's opinion: the chair deceitfully misled the Board when he stated 2 Executive Committee members resigned. The Board knows the two did not resign as they were at the meeting. the chair deceitfully misled the Board when he quoted RONR stating resignations were not withdrawn properly omitting the true definition. the chair deceitfully misled the Board when he said the Executive Committee must act for the Board in the name of expediency and then not hold a meeting for 90 days. Now the Chair is doing everything through email voting stating members that may not be able to attend in-person meetings will have access to vote electronically.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...