Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Gary Novosielski

Members
  • Content Count

    11,323
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Gary Novosielski

  1. Not exactly. The question boils down to whether the original director was or was not actually removed. If they were properly removed, the only way they could be "put back" would be to run for office again next election. If they were not properly removed, then they are still a director, and do not need to be restored, and the newly placed director isn't "no longer" a director, since-they never were. If that's the case, you'll also need to revisit decisions made while the un-director was voting. Any decisions made where that one vote might have changed the outcome may be void. This might be hard to determine if votes were taken by methods other than roll call or other counted votes, which would mean the minutes would not contain the vote count.
  2. Well, we haven't definitively ruled that out. ๐Ÿ™‚
  3. I'm trying to imagine a situation where business is proceeding normally, there is no one alleging that any rules are being breached, and yet suddenly there is a bylaw which, even if it is ambiguous, does not bear on current business, yet needs immediate interpretation. I agree that such a motion, if adopted, would be simply advisory because while it may establish the sense of the assembly, it does not constitute a Special Rule of Order, to which the bylaws would yield.
  4. I think the appropriate remedy in the case of an ambiguous bylaw which it is agree, is ambiguous is to amend it.
  5. Dangit. ๐Ÿ˜ My brain said G but my fingers said D. I would have done fine with a straight key.
  6. RONR makes clear in 9:34 written communication includes "postal mail, e-mail, 'chat rooms,' or fax".
  7. Yes, I agree, despite my inarticulate paraphrasing. I was trying to say it was allowed by contrast with the case where ballots are required.
  8. There is no actual motion to Interpret the Bylaws. The process is to raise a Point of Order on the grounds you mentioned, or others as appropriate. The interpretation is determined by the chair's ruling if not Appealed, or if sustained on appeal, and the converse interpretation if not.
  9. You're not going wrong. It is permitted. While acclamation is still allowed used for uncontested seats, a contested election can be conducted by a voice vote, although a ballot is more usual. The procedure in 12 RONR ยง 46:38 (๐Ÿ™‚) is used, which is essentially the same as that used for filling blanks, except that filling the blank amounts to completing the election.
  10. I see your point, but it is not really a request, it is a demand, since the minutes must be read on the "request" of a single member. Since a single member can alter the process, it amounts to an objection not unlike that of a unanimous consent request. The difference occurs in what happens next. In the case of a unanimous consent request, the chair states the question as a motion. But here, the chair upon hearing objection (or requisition) would simply say "The secretary will read the minutes."
  11. As this is essentially unanimous consent, would it not be appropriate for the chair to say, "The minutes have been distributed to all members. Without objection, reading is waived. Are there any corrections to the minutes?"
  12. That does not appear to be what the bylaws say. Is there language elsewhere that says uncontested positions may be elected by acclamation? If not, RONR is explicit that a ballot must be held, and this provision may not be suspended even by a unanimous vote. [RONR (12th ed.) 45:20]. I'm not sure how the apparent prohibition on write-ins interacts with this rule, since that would appear to render this rule absurd, yet there it is. For that reason I hope there is an acclamation exception elsewhere in your bylaws, or else that this RONR rule would carve out an exception to the "no write-ins" rule. Hoping others will comment.
  13. I was about to suggest that, but this society seems to value the concept of impartiality of the chair to such a degree that I thought it unlikely that they would enjoy using small board rules. Or was that the other one?
  14. This is remarkably similar to the question about the chair of the bylaws committee participating in debate. Just a coincidence? In any case, if the chair of the standing committee is also presiding at the meeting where the report is received, the committee can designate another of its members to be the reporting member, and to make any motions arising out of the report. The president could then preside normally over the meeting at which the report was received.
  15. I'll take that as agreement that it would not constitute previous notice. ๐Ÿ™‚
  16. The closest situation in RONR is a committee whose chair delivers the report of the committee, moves any recommendations that are included in the report, and if there is discussion, participates in debate on the merits of the motion(s) and then votes on their adoption. But that vote takes place not in the committee, but in the parent assembly to which the committee reports. And when the committee chair casts that vote, he is not doing it as a committee chair, and has no duty of impartiality. He is doing it as a member of the parent body and, like other committee members who are members of the parent body, votes freely. I have made an assumption that all uses of the word "chair" in your question refer to the same individual.
  17. Hmm. I seem to have quoted this without replying to it. And whatever I was going to say has slipped my alleged mind. As you were. Apologies for the interruption.
  18. Was there a nominating committee? Did it report? Were additional nominations by petition received? If so, then I think the only reasonable course of action is to hold the election as soon as possible. Discipline of those who failed in their duties is certainly an option, but that's a different question. I'm not sure what the language "voting...if necessary" means. Since ballots are required, when would voting not be necessary?
  19. I concur with my colleagues that paragraph c. appears to make ineligible anyone who did not follow the application process. Write-in votes may only be made for eligible candidates. If no one else is eligible, then write in votes would seem to be unavailable.
  20. By what mechanism was the vote taken? If no ballot vote was required, and no other candidate was nominated, she should have been declared elected by acclamation. But if nobody raised a point of order, I do not believe a continuing breach exists, so I can't suggest any recourse.
×
×
  • Create New...