Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Bruce Lages

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Location:
    Northeastern NJ

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Your organization can put any rules you want into your bylaws, including rules that override the rules in your adopted parliamentary authority. What cannot be put in your bylaws would be rules that conflict with procedural elements contained in local, state, or federal laws. So, yes, rules that restrict members' rights to make motions and/or debate can be added to your bylaws, as long as the procedure contained in the bylaws for their amendment is followed. It will also be wise to look at your provincial acts for anything related to procedure that might apply to your organization - you ca
  2. I thought Mr. Brown might be referring to some secret 2FP procedure đŸ™„
  3. I think Guest Michaelann is asking about their motion that 'the Bylaws Committee moves the adoption of the bylaws revision', i.e. whether that motion can be rescinded. I think the answer to that is clearly no. But the motion was defeated, so the bylaws have not be amended, and rescinding would therefore seem to be pointless. It will be necessary to submit a new revision encompassing the same changes, with or without any new changes, if it is still desired to make these changes to the bylaws.
  4. If that is all that happened, then the minutes should reflect that the motion was made (with the name of the maker), seconded (no name necessary), and no vote was taken. If your next meeting is held within a quarterly time period, that motion should be brought up under unfinished business. The chair at that time should urge that the motion be dealt with in some way - a vote, or postponement to the next meeting, or referral to a committee.
  5. As a member of the group, a person serving officially as the parliamentarian has the right to vote, but does not exercise that right (except in the case of a ballot vote), nor does she participate in debate or make motions. When a member is officially elected or appointed as the parliamentarian she gives up these rights of membership in order to preserve the appearance of impartiality. However, in many organizations a member who is more experienced in parliamentary procedure may be called on by the chair to provide some guidance in particular instances. In that case such a member does not giv
  6. Based on the OP's wording, I would conclude that it is the organization's standard policy to automatically supplement approved grants with a 10% contingency fee. If that is the case, then the treasurer's interpretation that this was an approval of the grantee's request seems to be accurate. The grantee did, in fact, request $80,000. The assumption that the grantee should only get $80,000, without the 10% contingency fee, does not seem logical from the discussion of the motion as presented. If that was what was intended, it would seem to me that an amendment should have been offered to specific
  7. Was this a standing committee, i.e., a committee either defined in the bylaws or established by the assembly to which items like the one at issue here are always referred, or was it a special committee, i.e., one created by the assembly to research this one issue only and report it recommendations? It makes a difference because if it is the latter it would cease to exist once it has reported its recommendations and the assembly has acted on them (RONR, 12th ed. 50:10). If it's a special committee and the assembly wants it to provide more input on this issue, a motion would be needed to re-cre
  8. In that case, then it seems to me that amending the rule that only certain motions will be permitted as 'interrupting motions' to include other motions will require a majority vote, but once this, and any other amendments to specific rules are dealt with, you will need a 2/3 vote to adopt the entire set of proposed standing rules. The 2/3 vote is required if any of the rules by themselves would require a 2/3 vote to adopt, for example any rule - such as the one in question here - that can be considered to be a special rule of order. See RONR, 12th ed., 59:30-34.
  9. Could you clarify what you mean by "...a motion is made to change policy and there is a second motion and then voted on..."? What, specifically, were these two motions?
  10. The section cited by Mr. Martin, entitled Reports of Executive Officers, makes reference to the president and vice president only. I can't find any other reference in RONR to the term 'executive officers'. Does this imply that only the president and vice president are considered to be executive officers and that only for their reports, someone else should make any motion arising out of the report?
  11. The latter. However, if the report includes recommended action, the officer, unless the chair, would make a motion to implement the recommended action.
  12. I think you meant " .. ._ _ _. ._. . ."
  13. I stand corrected on the first part of my response. I didn't pick up on the fact that the requested rule was being offered as an amendment to the convention standing rules.
  14. Look at RONR, 12th ed., 59:35, especially section 1 of that paragraph. The rules you cited would be considered special rules of order in an ordinary organization, and would therefore require a 2/3 vote if being adopted initially as part of the convention standing rules. If what you want to do is amend an already established convention standing rule, it will also take a 2/3 vote or a vote of a majority of all the delegates who have been registered (59:36).
  15. Remember also that if this is a relatively small board (not more than about 12 members) operating under the relaxed rules for such boards (RONR, 12th ed. 49:21), the chair can participate fully in debate, so that whether the chair presents the committee report or not, he or she can fully participate in any debate that may arise out of the committee's recommendations.
  • Create New...