Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Gary Novosielski

Members
  • Content Count

    10,827
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Gary Novosielski

  1. The proper way to avoid being bound by adopted motions is to resign from the organization. Failing that, expulsion from membership can be equally effective.
  2. Not ordinarily. A recommendation to approve funds can be included in a committee report.
  3. A 2/3 vote is satisfied if there are at least twice as many Yes votes as No votes. Abstentions and absences are not votes.
  4. Advisory, and arguably inadvisable. All that is necessary is for the president to announce such appointments, typically during the time for reports of officers.
  5. I am trying to get my head around the concept that a group of rational beings would rebel at the idea that they democratically choose the time and date of the next meeting, yet not rebel at the idea that one individual should have he power to dictate when and where they must show up, no matter how inconvenient. Since the bylaws are typically voted on by the general membership, it is usually the case that the board meets whenever the full membership says they do. It has been amply demonstrated in practice that having a planned and predictable day when meetings are held leads to more reliable attendance.
  6. I suspect they're confusing this with the rule that two members of a committee may call a meeting if the chair fails to do so.
  7. Yes, the president was quite correct. You can't vote unless you are present. And you can't vote before voting begins.
  8. If the board wishes to do so, there's no rule against it in RONR. However, a person on the phone is not considered "present" and does not count toward a quorum. The board may allow them to speak, but not to vote. To allow full participation by phone, the bylaws would have to be amended to authorize this and to set down rules for how such participation would be handled.
  9. Simply combine the names on all the lists. That is your pool of nominees. You're voting for people, not for lists.
  10. The word emergency appears three times in the text, twice referring to an emergency adjournment, and once with respect to expiring terms of officers. Emergency meetings are not mentioned. So, unless emergency meetings are covered in your bylaws, RONR treats any meeting called for a time not that of a regular meeting as a special meeting. And without a bylaws provision special meetings, emergency meetings, or whatever you call them, are not allowed. Any decisions reached at such a "meeting" would be null and void. Ratifying the decisions at the next board meeting would be in order, within the rules of §10 regarding ratification, particularly that an assembly can ratify only those actions that it would have had the authority to authorize in advance.
  11. It is not clear to me that the motion to Reconsider was in order in the first place. It is clear it the motion to be reconsidered was not adopted earlier in the same meeting or the previous day.
  12. It's better than Lauren Auder, or Okei Sosumi.
  13. Of course not. I just believe they should.
  14. That's why Josh has that statement in his signature. 👇
  15. A single member can't table anything, and nobody can table something because they don't agree with the formatting. So what should have happened was that the chair should have ruled the (motion?) to table as out of order. If the board wishes to prepare a new budget, it was probably not a wise choice to allow the report to be tabled in the first place. But at this point, anyone can move to take the report from the table at the next meeting. Special meetings can't be called except by following the procedures that are (hopefully) contained in your bylaws. See FAQ #12 for more information on the motion to Lay on the Table.
  16. Please post your question as a new topic. Thanks.
  17. That's quite common, and the recommendation of RONR. But the general rule is that the right to remove belongs to those with the right to appoint. So it's unlikely that the chairman/president would have the authority to remove or replace committee members, unless there's some rule of yours that we don't know about. The members of the committee by majority vote could adopt a motion requesting the general membership to replace a member. Or the membership could decide to do so on its own if it got wind of the situation and was concerned enough to take action.
  18. It is likely that the word is defined elsewhere in the statute, or failing that, a prior case may have decided the issue already. In either event the answer will not be found within the pages of RONR, and the aid of a legal professional is probably necessary.
  19. Yes, it does assume that the OP is barking up the right tree, as my signature suggests.
  20. In the typical case, the nominating committee is appointed by and reports to the general membership, not the board, and especially not the president, who, RONR suggests, should have nothing to do with that committee. So it depends on whether you do things that way, or some other way. The questions asked by Mr. Brown are good ones.
  21. Well, if it came down to it, so would I. Bordering on dilatory isn't the same as crossing the line. Besides, I can't read his mind to see that he's in favor, but objecting just to play with the process. Someone says "Objection", I say "Objection is heard." But if I knew, somehow, that he really favored the request, I'd reserve the right to roll my eyes. Inconspicuously, to preserve the appearance of impartiality. 😎
  22. The city manager is obviously incorrect. Can't be changed?? The whole point of reading and approving the minutes is to make sure they are correct--and if incorrect, to correct them. When the minutes are pending, offer a correction to strike "rescinded" and insert "withdrawn". That's what was actually done, even if it was called something else at the time.
  23. Good catch; thank you. I was thinking of one of the other two special cases where a majority is sufficient even without notice: In any case, it appears that a Discharge motion rather than one to Rescind should be on the agenda for next time.
  24. One is either opposed or in favor. If you're opposed and choose not to acquiesce, then object. Otherwise, don't. Preoccupation with process at this fine granularity borders on the dilatory, in my view. Our hypothetical member, Mr. H, would be presumptuous to believe that "these people" are incapable of objecting for themselves, should they feel the need of a chance to speak, or that he knows what they need better than they do. or that if he objected for them, they would not acquiesce after all, but rather engage in debate. They might well wonder why he objected, then had nothing to say in debate. It seems to me that Mr. H. is overthinking it. Or perhaps it's really his own voice he's interested in hearing. 🙄
×
×
  • Create New...