Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Gary Novosielski

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Gary Novosielski

  1. If it is a simple matter of proposing an agenda when there is not one currently pending, then yes, the mover is free to propose one. However, in this case we are told that there is already one under consideration, and someone wants to propose, in one motion, that the assembly remove one item and adopt the remaining agenda. And that is simply not how a motion is handled.
  2. No, not even the membership can vote to suspend the bylaws. This would require a bylaws amendment, and I doubt the Executive Committee has such power.
  3. It seems to be back now. Another change that seems to have been reverted was the disappearance of the bell icon from the top line, hiding it behind a three-line menu in the upper right corner. It is also back to normal.
  4. Well I think you would want to do that as two motions: one to amend the proposed agenda by removing an item, and another to approve the (possibly amended) agenda. But yes, such motions are debatable.
  5. A good deal less. The bare minimum for a meeting to be considered held is a call to order and adjournment. If a quorum was not present when the meeting was called to order, and there seemed little prospect that one could be obtained, then that might be the entire meeting in a nutshell--a small nutshell. But it still counts as a meeting, so that if your bylaws mandated that a meeting must be held on such-and-such a date, it counts. Minutes would also be recorded, and would be similarly brief. If your bylaws mandated that a meeting must be held and particular business handled at
  6. The link at the bottom of each thread to Unread Content seems to have vanished. I presume this is yet another "enhancement"? đŸ˜’
  7. Exactly. Edited to add: And it should be noted that the rule is considered to protect absentees, notwithstanding that it might be argued that the absentees actually knew, somehow, what the meeting was about. It needs to be in the call of the meeting, "clearly and specifically describing the subject matter of the motions or items of business to be brought up". [9:13]
  8. Well, that suggests that your earlier claim that all language related to discipline had been removed from your bylaws was somewhat misleading. I wash my hands of this question.
  9. Yes, of course that's right, but it just feels wrong. It's probably because I'm thinking of SDC 7 of Suspend the Rules: The spirit of that rule suggests that if this were a suspension of the rule that provides for a majority vote (rather than a special rule of order) to require an 85% vote, it would not survive in the face of 1/3 opposition. But admittedly, it is not.
  10. And apparently they have also told you to handle this in accordance with RONR, so as Mr. Martin strongly advises, you should carefully study Chapter XX in RONR. If you do, you will find that there is no way for individual members to "prefer charges" against anyone. Charges can only be preferred by adopting the recommendation of an investigative committee, [63:11] so you may need to back up a few steps if these "charges" had some other origin.
  11. You are, of course, free to hope. The hideous abbreviation for the Communications Committee is left as an exercise for the reader.
  12. I'm still wondering why a special rule of order requiring an 85% threshold would not require 85% for adoption.
  13. I'm not sure what these "charges" have to do with RONR. If there is nothing in your bylaws about it, you should be using the procedure in Chapter XX (20) in RONR. For details on the president voting, see FAQ #1 on this page.
  14. Certainly not. I doubt there's an automatic removal provision in the bylaws, since to remove an officer requires a 2/3 vote to remove. And as there was no such motion, there is no removal. A motion to keep the officer on the board, if it passes, keeps the officer on the board. But that would be the case if the motion was never made, since the officer is already on the board. The motion therefore does nothing, and is not in order. Even if it fails, the status quo prevails, no action is taken, and the officer remains on the board. No effect in any event. And even if we assume for
  15. <sigh> You can't raise a point of order because it's not a board meeting and the action took place at one. And how is the null and void argument going to fail if, as you said originally, most of the general membership is strongly against what they did? Or was that wishful thinking? Anyway, good luck with whatever you decide.
  16. There's no rule in RONR that prohibits it.
  17. Yes, I did say that being absent didn't violate anyone's rights. But violating a rule intended to protect absentees does create a continuing breach and makes the action of the board null and void. I suggest you go back and read all of the replies in this thread a lot more carefully than you apparently have up to now, and then if you insist on taking the weaker course of action, I wish you luck.
  18. That depends on the rules in your bylaws or standing rules, or possibly in the budget resolution. In many organizations there is a rule that the treasurer is authorized to issue payments that are authorized within the budget, but often the request must be issued by a committee chair or some other relevant requestor.
  19. Huh? You already have all the justification you need in 23:6(e), since the rule protects absentees, and there were two absentees. But what meeting are you talking about? A point of order would have to be made at the board meeting, and if there was a unanimous vote to remove the director, it is likely not to be favorably ruled on, nor to win on appeal. The motion I described can be done at a membership meeting, where you say you have majority support. And what federal state or local law are you talking about? You didn't mention this before. Yes, the violation is that the call of
  20. Merely being absent doesn't violate his rights, but if he was not properly notified it would. Whether that would violate a fundamental principle of parliamentary law is not at all clear. Besides. the criteria for a continuing breach are most important when you're attempting to raise a point of order, and that's not what I'm suggesting, since a point of order would need to be done in a board meeting, and clearly nobody's going to do that. That's why I believe the alternative I highlighted in 23:9 is appropriate since it is done in a Membership meeting, as an incidental main motion requir
  21. It would depend on the reason that the vote was out of order. The general rule is that a Point of Order must be timely, and that once the meeting moves on to other business or adjourns, it is too late to raise a point of order. But there are situations, where the action creates a "continuing breach" of the rules that a point of order can be raised at any time as long as the breach continues. A point of order cannot be raised by e-mail, or be ruled on outside of a meeting, but if this would qualify as a continuing breach, the point could be raised at the next meeting. Q: If a po
  • Create New...