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

4,988 profile views
  1. In which case a majority vote should settle the question. RONR would be fine with it either way.
  2. Well, the Senate rules regarding quorum are more "creative" than RONR. The most common use of a quorum call there is simply to waste time. A member suggests the absence of a quorum and the clerk calls the roll at a pace that makes a snail look positively fleet of foot. And when enough time has been wasted someone can effectively say "never mind" and the count stops. Apparently the concept of a recess has not yet reached west of the rotunda. Under RONR if a point of order is raised that there appears to be less than a quorum present, the determination would be done as if the answer mat
  3. Assuming that you mean they went back and approved the original motion as amended, then yes.
  4. Thank you. For a moment there I was dealing with cognitive dissonance.
  5. The minutes would record the votes of members by name if a Roll Call vote is used. Roll call votes are typically used when the voting members are responsible to a constituency. If roll call votes are not the usual method of voting, then to use that method would require adopting a motion. A majority vote is required to order a roll call unless the bylaws specify some lower threshold. Further reading: RONR (12th ed.) §45:45-54
  6. If the rules in RONR apply: The recording would be considered as part of the Secretary's notes and members would not automatically have a right to them. However there is no rule preventing making the recording available to members. Retaining the recordings is optional and up to your organization to decide. The minutes (once approved) are the official record. RONR is not silent on this point. See §48:6
  7. Abstentions are not called for, not counted, and are not votes.
  8. Yes, and then when things go wrong, the finger pointing starts. Responsibility shared is responsibility diluted.
  9. My strongly held belief is that you would be far better off deleting all reference to Co-<anything> in your bylaws. It is nothing but trouble, as you're beginning to find out.
  10. They are not "his" votes. The votes belong to the members who cast them. If he withdraws after a ballot has been counted, and nobody (else) received a majority, another vote will be required. The withdrawing person may endorse another candidate, but everyone is still free to vote however they wish.
  11. Yes, your instincts are correct. Go to https://robertsrules.com/official-interpretations/ and scroll to OI 2006-13, which covers this exact situation. (to reveal the answer, you must click on that number--yeah, I know...)
  12. Ah, but it is. At least it breaks no law in RONR. It's common that some organizations will open nominations at a regular meeting a month in advance of the election, and then hold the election at the next meeting. But there's no rule against reopening nominations at the election meeting to add additional nominees from the floor. If the organization wishes, nominations could theoretically be open for several months. RONR does not have limitations on when or how long nominations can be open. Indeed it does not even require nominations at all. You may find it suggestive to note that
  • Create New...