Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

jstackpo

Members
  • Content Count

    8,221
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jstackpo

  1. To be super formal about it: you now have a VP vacancy which you can fill by a Board vote. When you do, that person will immediately become president, automatically. Then you just have another board vote to (re)fill the just vacated VP position.
  2. Yes, the bylaws win out. Sometimes, since RONR doesn't define a "non-voting member", arguments will come up as to which of all the other membership rights are still retained by the "non-voting-member". Raise points of order, appeal rulings, make motions, debate, Etc, etc? If you see this as a potential problem, it might be wise to offer a bylaw amendment to clarify.
  3. Sure, but someone, or some law or legislation, created the Board and authorized the council to name people to serve on ("appoint") the board. What does that establishing law say about how the board is to conduct business? RONR? Or something else?
  4. RONR doesn't include (or define) the concept of a "continuing resolution" other than to note that ANY adopted resolution remains in effect until it is in some sense exhausted, or formally rescinded. Looks like your bylaws have taken care of the rescinding for you, some 6 years ago, and I trust your bylaws define how your "continuing resolution" differs from any old resolution. And rest easy, a "resolution" is a standard term in RONR -- it is no more that a plain old motion dressed up in fancy clothes -- see page 105. Any adopted motion/resolution should be recorded in the minutes of the meeting in which it was adopted for future reference.
  5. RONR has no specifications for "nominee withdrawal". So once nominated... that's it. You certainly can't "force" him to run, but folks are free to vote for him. Or not. There are no "formal" withdrawal rules -- the secretary is confused (perhaps).
  6. Yes. Baring any legal requirement on your association, only members of the board have rights to participate in board meetings. "Participate" includes everything - see RONR page 3.
  7. Tied vote = lost motion. No "do-overs" when the chairman shows up.
  8. We are talking about the parliamentary mechanics for removal, not the motives. "Or until" and "And until" make a big difference in the mechanics.
  9. Just to be sure I have your position clearly in mind (and to close out the debate, I suppose, unless you or others have more to say), your contention is that the presence in the bylaws of an explicit statement (of the "or until" variety pertaining to election to membership) authorizing expulsion from membership by a 2/3 vote eliminates the requirement for a trial (I agree up to this point). But also the presence of such a "2/3 and you are out" expulsion option means that any lesser penalties can be imposed without a due process type trial. (At this point we disagree.) If I got it wrong, please correct me.
  10. Clarifying my question: By "same position" I mean that if the society included the "or until" exception to a trial requirement for removal from office, would some (any-?) lesser penalties also be excluded? And if so which ones? Where in the hierarchy of possible penalties would you place removal from office?
  11. Clearly we differ of the philosophy of Chapter 20. So be it. Would you hold to the same position if the "expulsion without a trial" exception was not in my sample organization? I.e., it was a purely Robertian society, including a removal of an officer without a trial, via "or until"?
  12. The assumption, in the US anyway, is that a body, that has adopted no parliamentary rules, when meeting to do official business will follow the "common parliamentary law (CPL)" in doing that business. RONR is most likely the best expression available of what the CPL actually is, so go ahead and table something (following RONR, page 209) if appropriate. You would be wise to adopt RONR as your CPL rule book to avoid arguments over details in the future. Bring us your questions!
  13. Well, the bylaws say  something certainly: "Unexpired termed vacancy of the president the nominating committee will make recommendations." Is that a direct quotation? Can't tell for sure. Do they actually say that the membership will elect someone to fill the vacancy?
  14. You bet! And feel free to use all the salty language at your command if someone tries to tell you that you cannot debate or vote!
  15. Is RONR included in the bylaws, or the laws, that established the board, as in... Article # Parliamentary Authority “The rules contained in the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised shall govern the Society in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order the Society may adopt.” Of course, another term than “Society” may be substituted that more appropriately describes the particular organization. Pay particular attention to the footnote on page 580 of RONR (11th ed.) if your organization is incorporated.
  16. If "We" means the members attending a meeting called to elect someone to fill the vacancy, then you are doing just fine. Since from what you said previously, the former V-P is now the president automatically, the vacancy you are filling is in the V-P position.
  17. Per RONR, only the members of the group that is meeting, plus anybody that the members, collectively, wish to invite to be present. It sounds, however, that your "group" is a city or municipal body of some sort; there may be requirements as to who has a (legal) right to be present, as well. Check with your city attorney.
  18. Well now, another disagreement on my part, particularly with the assertion following "but since", and thus the conclusion about a 2/3 vote. Consider what RONR does in Chapter 20, specifically for offenses elsewhere than in a meeting. It lays out a fair due process system that an association must go through, by virtue of adopting RONR, to impose any penalty on someone who deserves such. The penalty can range from censure all the way to expulsion from office or membership. But then the book (simultaneously) allows two exceptions to following the full due process procedures: a censure can be tendered by just a majority vote any old time and a removal from office can be accomplished by adopting a motion to remove following the requirements set out on pages 574 or 653, provided the "or until" phrase is in place in the bylaws. I do not see any other exceptions to the go-thru-a-trial due process procedure for any other contemplated penalties (nor any related vote threshold requirements). Thus a proposal to suspend a member for a period of time, impose a fine, require a letter of apology, expel him from membership, or any number of imaginable penalties, MUST be preceded by the full due process (trial, &c) steps. No way around it. Granted, the book mentions a couple of opportunities to "short-cut" the trial procedure (p. 656, lines 9 to 12, and p. 658, lines 21-24) but such a shortcut doesn't allow you to jump to the penalty phase (p. 667, line 31ff.), it merely ends the procedure, presumably with some sort of informal agreement, and NO formal imposition of a penalty by the association. My sample organization, described in the initial posting, does add one more exception (expulsion by a 2/3 vote, no trial required) and actually makes the removal from office slightly more difficult than RONR's exception for removal. But not by much. At least, since these proposals would be presented as main motions, there would be opportunity for debate and, thus, a modicum of due process, but nothing like a full trial. But adding a minimally detailed exemption or a slightly tighter rule for an existing exception can hardly be a reason to argue that other possible penalties are (magically) also now exempt from the full due process requirements.
  19. "Recommendation to who[m]? Do the the bylaws say what the recipients of the recommendation are to do about it?
  20. And for a "quick study" pick up a copy of RONRIB: "Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief", Updated Second Edition (Da Capo Press, Perseus Books Group, 2011). It is a splendid summary of all the rules you will ever need in all but the most exceptional situations. And only $7.50! You can read it in an evening. Get both RONRIB and RONR (scroll down) at this link: http://www.robertsrules.com/inbrief.html Or in your local bookstore.
  21. Yeah... but my (current) concern is with the rules to follow leading up to the imposition of the penalty, but not with any consequences if the accused (or guilty party) refuses to accede to the proper order.
  22. I beg to differ.... with both Josh and, to my peril(?), with Dan... But first, a clarification (that I may not have been clear about initially): I intended the discussion of bylaw provisions overriding RONR to apply only to "offenses [committed] elsewhere than in a meeting" and the procedures related to dealing with them, as noted briefly on page 649, and extensively described starting on page 654. That, after all, is the bulk of the chapter and the more complicated material. To Josh's point: Seems to me that censure and ordering (or requiring) an apology are VERY different penalties. The former is something the assembly can do by majority vote with no regard as to how the subject of the censure may feel about it; the latter requires action on the part of the subject which could have social and psychological consequences. An apology requires, in effect, a public admission of guilt (at least within the confines of the association) by the offender, not always a comfortable thing to own up to. A censure, obviously, does not require anything of the offender; the subject can simply ignore the censure and go on his or her merry way. Since a censure is of little practical consequence, RONR notes (p. 643, footnote, and elsewhere, see the index) that imposing the penalty of a censure does not require formal disciplinary procedures and hence does not require any proof of culpability, whether by a full trial or by a guilty plea. A required apology/admission is quite a different kettle of (Maryland blue) crabs and, in my view, requires the full due process steps of Chapter 20. Otherwise how can one order an apology for something completely unproven that the subject may very well deny happened. And while I am being disagreeable... Note, on page 668, that any penalty less than expulsion from membership, once the trial steps have been completed, requires only a majority vote to impose. Indeed, suspension of a member's rights can take place even before a trial actually gets under way, at the point that a formal notification is tendered to the accused party (p. 662 line 25ff).
  23. And another reason is efficiency (although Zev implied that by writing "able to dispatch the business in good order"). Insist (particularly in a contentious situation) on strict adherence to the standard parliamentary rules and you will all get out of the meeting MUCH sooner than otherwise. And do what needs to be done in the process.
  24. Probably not. However, check the statutes which established the (presumably public/govenrment) board. There might be some "rules" in them.
×
×
  • Create New...