Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Tim Wynn

Members
  • Content Count

    5,086
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Tim Wynn

  • Rank
    Professional Registered Parliamentarian

Profile Information

  • Location:
    Central Florida

Recent Profile Visitors

1,109 profile views
  1. Thank you, sir. What is said in 12:25 does give me comfort.
  2. If a motion to strike out inserted words can present a new question (even though it is not a question that is in order), then the reason for its being out of order must be based in some principle other than the principle that an assembly cannot be asked to decide the same, or substantially the same, question twice during one session.
  3. I'm trying to understand whether any of its being out of order is based on a perception that it does not present a new question. I'm trying to fully understand the underlying principle.
  4. The main motion is "That the Southern Historical Society commends the following Florida-native staff members for their hard work on this year's annual Florida Day parade: . . . [names of hard working staff members]" A motion to amend by striking out "Florida-native" and inserting "Floridian" is adopted. Does a motion to strike out "Floridian" present a new question (in relation to the one decided by the adoption of the amendment) since a) those who oppose any Florida reference altogether might have only preferred "Floridian" to "Florida-native" as opposed to actu
  5. That's the magic of the RONR forum. You're welcome.
  6. Clever! πŸ˜‰ (I trust and respect Bruce's instinct, though) I actually wrote a long response declaring how it would not be in order to strike the inserted language, but when I saw Bruce going the other way, I began to over (actually under) analyze.
  7. Reading Bruce's post on this question rattled my conviction. Always beware a man on a boat. πŸ˜‰
  8. I believe the following passage covers it (except for the crying "uncle" part): "If, for any reason, the assembly does not complete an election at the time for which it was scheduled, it should do so as soon as possible and may do so at any time until the expiration of the term the election is to fill. In the meantime, if the term of office extends until a successor is elected (see 56:28–30) failure to complete an election leaves the incumbent, if any, in office. Otherwise, a vacancy in office arises (see 47:57–58 for procedures for filling vacancies). Once the election is completed, howe
  9. Shmuel, Thank you, sir. I believe that clears it up, if my understanding is correct: the crux of the matter is whether this represents a new question, not whether other words were struck out, since in your example you concur that in some cases a motion to strike out and insert is in order even if it is striking out only words that were inserted. For the past ten years or so, up until yesterday, I was under the complete conviction that inserted words could not be struck out through a motion to strike out and insert, unless they were joined with other words being struck out
  10. You mean as it says in 12:28(2)? "To strike out a portion of the paragraph, including all or a part of the words inserted and enough other words to make a different question from the one decided by the insertion." - RONR (12th ed.) 12:28(2) The omission of this from 12:28(4) would make this reference less than obvious. "To strike out a portion of the paragraph (including all or a part of the words inserted) and insert other words, in a way that presents a new question." - RONR (12th ed.) 12:28(4) It appears that the "other" that is necessary in (4) is to "insert other words
  11. I suppose that's the same way using the standard order of business doesn't make it a Standard Order of Business. "This is also frequently done when, for any reason, neither the standard order of business nor a special order of business established by rule of the organization is practical or applicable." - RONR (12th ed.) 41:60
  12. But it's easy to see why someone might think so: "In organizations that have adopted this book as parliamentary authority and that have not adopted a special order of business, this series of headings is the prescribed order of business for regular meetings, unless the periods intervening between consecutive regular meetings are usually more than a quarterly time interval (see 9:7)." - RONR (12th ed.) 41:6 πŸ˜‰
  13. And it seems to me that this is the exact type of permissible amendment that is described in 12:28(4).
  14. Yes, a special order of business can be adopted that would apply to all sessions. Mr. Novosielski thought you were referring to a special order, an understandable mistake. An order of business could be provided in the bylaws or adopted as a special rule of order.
  15. I think your question needs some clarity. Are you asking for recommended bylaw language to achieve a certain purpose, or are you asking whether an individual is eligible to serve in office according to a particular bylaw provision that exists in your organization?
×
×
  • Create New...