Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Weldon Merritt

Members
  • Content Count

    1,190
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Weldon Merritt

  • Birthday 03/09/1944

Profile Information

  • Location:
    Albuquerque, New Mexico

Recent Profile Visitors

2,178 profile views
  1. And if necessary, again, and again .... Eventually, someone will get a majority. Also, nominations could be reopened. That might result in the nomination of an acceptable compromise candidate.
  2. And if it's a tie vote on an election, you vote again, as often as necessary, until someone receives a majority. And by the way, you can have a tie vote even if you have an odd number of members, since someone may be absent, or abstain.
  3. Maybe so. But I still find it hard to believe that any rational person would seriously propose doing so, even for the ostensible purpose of testing the FD's response time. Of course, if we assume that most of the members are rational, it probably wouldn't take long for the motion to be soundly defeated even if it is not ruled out of order.
  4. I think those methods would fall within the definition of a "ballot." See 45:18n3.
  5. That does seem clear enough. I was thinking that the rule appeared in the article on elections. I should have taken the time to look it up.
  6. Any ballot vote? Certainly that is tree for the election of officers, but I'm not so sure that it's true for any other ballot vote that my be specified in a rule. At least I don't recall any such prohibition except for officer elections.
  7. You don't think that turning in a false fire alarm (for example) would be objectively "frivolous or absurd"? I do, and would not hesitate to so rule. If at least two members disagree, they would be free to appeal. This is, of course, an extreme example. I certainly can envision many less extreme example that I might find personally objectionable but that I could not, in good conscience, rule out of order.
  8. No, I don't think so. And I agree with you as a general rule. But not knowing all of the circumstances in this instance, I can't say for sure that what was done was out of order. And even if it was, I don't think it created a continuing breach, so a Point of Order would have had to be raised at the meeting were the announcement was made. Also, note that even if the minutes legitimately were approved by a committee, that does not preclude the assembly correcting them if they contain an error. That would be done by the motion to amend something previously adopted. See RONR 48:15.
  9. It's not entirely clear whether the meeting was the sort of regular meeting for which a minutes approval committee would not be needed, but I agree that if it was, using such a committee would not be necessary. On the other hand, I don't read RONR as prohibiting use of a committee. It just doesn't make much sense to do so, barring some unusual circumstance.
  10. I agree with Mr. Brown, except to add that the organization may ratify the purchase at the excess cost, if the members feel that there was good justification for spending the extra amount.
  11. "To modify the rules governing what is regularly to be included in the minutes requires a special rule of order, although a majority vote my direct the inclusion of specific additional information in the minutes of a particular meeting." RONR 48:43.
  12. Well, I certainly don't want to disappoints, so here you go, courtesy of the late Dr. John Stackpole:
  13. I still don't see it there. But I have discovered that if I click on the button to the left of the title of each forum, it marks all of the posts in that forum as read. I agree with Mr., Brown that it has sometimes been too easy to accidentally mark a forum as read, which I have done myself a few times. It just makes me be extra careful.
×
×
  • Create New...