Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Weldon Merritt

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Weldon Merritt

  • Birthday 03/09/1944

Profile Information

  • Location:
    Albuquerque, New Mexico

Recent Profile Visitors

2,226 profile views
  1. See RONR (12th ed.) 56:19. The membership article in the bylaws should contain "any limitation on their number" (i.e., a cap on the number of members. Of course, if you haven't adopted RONR (which seems to be the case), that provision is not necessarily binding; but it's certainly persuasive. Bylaws are rules (specifically, the organization's "own basic rules relating principally to itself as an organization," RONR 2:8), so it is "a 'rules' change." But if the board is trying to say that it doesn't require a bylaws amendment because it is some other sort of rule (such as a standing rul
  2. I suppose not. But I wasn't the author of the special rule in question. I think a better wording would be, "A member may not conclude his debate by moving the previous question."
  3. But then it wouldn't be "at the conclusion of his speech." It would make just as much sense (very little IMO) to argue that the first part of Mr. Brown's example would prevent moving the Previous Question at all. If the intent were to prevent PQ entirely, the rule would need to say something like, "A motion for the Previous Question shall not be allowed."
  4. No. It would prevent the member from speaking in debate and concluding with a motion for the Previous Question. But it would not prevent the members from moving the Previous Question immediately on being recognized.
  5. How do you decide on these "action items"? It seems to me that the only legitimate way to create any such "action items" is by adoption of a main motion. And since the wording al all main motions are supposed to be included in the minutes, I would say not only is there no rule preventing you from listing them, they absolutely should be listed. If you mean something else, please let us know with a specific example.
  6. He still has not right to have his dissent recorded, but his request still can be granted by majority vote.
  7. Well if the two of you agree, who am I to disagree?đŸ˜€
  8. I confess that I haven't kept up with this thread. I might need to think about it a while.
  9. I concur. While I correctly said that the motion can't be renewed, I failed to note that it can be reconsidered.
  10. I concur with that thought. I think it falls squarely within the provisions of 8:15, barring renewal "the same or substantially the same question" at the same meeting. The fact that the original motion was amended does not alter the prohibition, regardless of how it was amended.
  11. No rule in RONR would preclude it. But whether it should happen is up to the appointing authority.
  12. The best defense against that, if you think they might be wrong, is to ask them to show you the rule.
  13. A belief in which I wholeheartedly concur. I haven't dealt with many groups that have co-officers or co-chairmen, so I can't speak from extensive experience; but I suspect that in most instances, one of the co-whatevers assumes the primary role and the other acts more live a vice whatever. So it is much better to set it up that way in the first place.
  14. First of all, for e-voting to be allowed, it must be authorized in your bylaws (or higher authority, such as an applicable statute), not just in your policies and procedures. Second, if it is properly authorized, the provision authorizing it should spell out whether it requires 100% of the votes cast, or 100% of the full membership. If ambiguous, you need to figure out what it means, and then amend the provision to resolve the ambiguity.
  15. Of course not! From the phrasing of your question, I assume that the votes already have been cast, and maybe even counted. But regardless, the votes for the withdrawing candidate cannot be transferred. The are still counted as part of the total votes cast. If that prevents one of the other candidates from receiving a majority, you have an incomplete elections and must vote again.
  • Create New...