Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

stature

Members
  • Content Count

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by stature

  1. stature

    Nominations

    yes and a second is not required RONR (10th ed.) p 418, l. 4
  2. Maybe you are recalling 'should' as meaning suggested?
  3. The only info provided on the bylaws was the right to a hearing before the Board, which is giving a forum with judge, but not a procedure for the hearing. Perhaps the poster can provide the exact bylaws language if there is more to it. I didn't see mention by the poster of bylaws language that covered procedural matters of notice and time to prepare, or anything else about how the hearing was to be conducted, which is why I would draw that from RONR (looking at the language in RONR for the absolutes and the rights, not the 'should' or 'can' language). I'm looking at this from the perspective of a hearing as a right of the accused, not a right of the board. As a right of the accused, a hearing provides fair opportunity to defend against charges.
  4. I disagree with saying 'If not in the bylaws then not required' in this situation. If RONR is adopted in the bylaws and bylaws say that "RONR governs the society in all situations AND where RONR is not inconsistent with the bylaws" (as most bylaws will state when adopting RONR), then according to RONR p. 631 l. 18-23 the person accused has a RIGHT to due process, which includes being informed of the charge and being given time to prepare a defense. How can the person have been given due process when they were just surprised by the invite and unknowingly stayed to find themself the defendant in a BOD trial? I think their rights under the society rules have been violated.
  5. I'll read and re-read. I'm planning to announce the proposed change and cc the general counsel of the organization. I figure if I write it up carefully and there's still something wrong, the counsel will have to earn his keep and tell me why.
  6. the people at the meeting set the compensation for the two year term edit to add: its paid monthly
  7. Thank you for the replies. I think I'll go for a bylaw to cut the term short then. We're paying for someone to do nothing. I'd like that job too , who wouldn't, but in the interests of the organization, its got to go.
  8. I look forward to RONR 11 ed

  9. Our organization has bylaws in place that provide for officer positions with a two year term. The problem is that other changes over the years have eliminated the need for this one officer position because there is nothing for the officer to oversee anymore. It is a paid position. We will have our national meeting in the fall. Under current bylaws, we have to elect someone to this position. Under current bylaws, this officer is listed with other positions as having a two year term. Our bylaws don't allow suspension. I want to propose a new bylaw to shorten the term of this officer position now to end it this year(in addition to changing the bylaws and eliminating this officer position from the list so we'll no longer be electing this officer position in 2013 two years from now) The bylaw change I will suggest: "Officer position shall end at midnight on the last day of 2011". Question: Is there any problem that the experienced parliamentarians here can foresee? That is, will there be any violations claimed given that the people who run for the officer position are doing so under bylaws that list it as having a two year term? Or is it perfectly fine to put a new rule in the bylaws that cuts that term short now? I don't want to see unanticipated claims of violations of rights under Robert's Rules I also have been thinking about whether elections fall under the category of 'rules of order' and can be suspended via a motion to suspend the election of that officer indefinately (that way we could get rid of the position from this coming election). Or is it a basic right of an individual to run for that office since its listed in the bylaws, and therefore the election is not suspendable?
  10. point of order! Its still 2010
  11. Thank you everyone, it looks like shall and must are the power words here and I can refer to dictionaries for my purposes (bylaw interpretation) and should avoid should.
  12. Hi. I can't remember where the paragraph on usage of 'SHALL' 'MUST'& 'SHOULD' is in RONR. I looked in the index, the section on bylaws drafting, the section on interpretation, I googled, but just can't find it. Does anyone here know where in the book that paragraph is located? Thank you Ann
×
×
  • Create New...