Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Gary Novosielski

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Gary Novosielski

  • Rank
  • Birthday April 18

Profile Information

  • Location:

Recent Profile Visitors

4,577 profile views
  1. I feel pretty safe in saying that an action that was improper at a certain time under the bylaws then in effect would remain improper even if the bylaws were subsequently amended to permit such actions going forward. And vice versa. Actions permitted by the bylaws at the time they are taken do not become retroactively improper as the result of a bylaws amendment, notwithstanding an ex post facto backdated effective time. A point of order, to be found well-taken, would be judged against the bylaws in effect at the time of the alleged breach.
  2. Unless you can come up with a rule allowing you to do so, a meeting can't be canceled unilaterally by the chair or other individual. There would be no need to "overturn" anything. Members could just show up at the appropriate time and place and hold the meeting--appointing, if necessary, a chair pro-tem to preside, should you, (or a vice-chair if any) fail to attend.
  3. Once a motion has been moved, seconded, and placed before the assembly, it ceases to "belong" to the mover (or seconder). It belongs then to the assembly as a whole, and cannot even be withdrawn by the original mover without the permission of the assembly. So, no worries, you can take it from the table at the next meeting.
  4. That would suggest the use of the motion to Rescind the resolution or motion that created the committee in the first place. See RONR (12th ed.) §35.
  5. I don't think so. Amending the bylaws won't make a previous bylaws violation retroactively proper.
  6. "Contrariwise, if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic." --Tweedledum.
  7. Yes, she did read it, but she did not properly seek to have it included. So why should it be?
  8. With the exception of my most recent post, all the other opinions were bandied about prior to Mr. Martin's apt citation. My opinion, if anything, supported Mr Martin's and I bandied it about because the OP seemed unwilling to take Yes for an answer. Even if undesirably bandied, I don't think it can fairly be called very many. And In my own defense, I must point out that I was left unsupervised. 😜
  9. As Mr. Kapur has noted, neither statement should be included. Have these minutes been up for approval yet? If not, should they happen to show up in the draft minutes, then when Reading and Approval of Minutes is pending, a correction should be offered striking both statements. Since the board did not approve of their inclusion, they don't belong in there. I do not believe that it would be proper, even if a majority favored them, to allow them to remain, since the minutes are a record of what happened, not what should have happened. The statements could be offered at this meeting by a
  10. I suggest a new section in the tinted pages outlining the characteristics of parliamentary situations that do not occur. The good news is that motions whose introduction does not take place do not require a second and can't possibly interrupt a speaker. There's two columns saved right there.
  11. I've heard more horror stories about property managers making up rules to the point where I would have to be shown the rule in writing before I believed anything of the sort.
  12. If your bylaws require a ballot vote, then a ballot vote must be held. Nominations, whether from a committee, or from the floor, are part of the same election, and the ballot vote requirement remains in effect. The bylaws may not mention nominations from the floor, but RONR does, so it is far from made up on the spot. If RONR is your parliamentary authority then its rules are your rules, unless superseded by your bylaws or special rules of order.
  • Create New...