Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Gary Novosielski

Members
  • Posts

    12,065
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Gary Novosielski

  1. No, it would be best if they would not use the word slate at all, and simply say what they wanted the committee to do, plainly and clearly.
  2. Apparently, your president does not have the authority to cancel the meeting even WITH a vote by the full board, if your bylaws are as you describe them. If your bylaws are silent on canceling meetings, then there is no way to cancel a meeting.
  3. It's neither and both, but how it shakes out in your case is going to be up to your society to try to anticipate. As for me, I am loath to tinker with the rules in RONR without a very good reason.
  4. Do your bylaws actually contain language that states that you do, in fact, have an executive board in the first place? Or did someone just make it up, and start having meetings?
  5. I'm hesitant to attempt an answer because I'm not sure what an executive board of a committee is. If it's actually a committee we're talking about (and not the executive board of the organization itself), the chair can call a meeting, and once called, anyone who shows up can validly meet, even if the chair then decides not to show. If the chair is unwilling to schedule meetings, any two committee members can do so. Once the committee meets, they they (by majority vote) can decide when to schedule future meetings.
  6. No, you don't round at all. Two thirds of 7 is 4 2/3 (not 4.6). So that's how many votes you need. Count the votes, and if there are 4 2/3or more then it passes. Clearly, four votes are less than that, while five votes are more, so it takes five.
  7. No, it was not immoral, unethical, or (presumably) illegal, but it certainly was improper. Ask yourself why you would vote to approve a financial report that had not been properly audited. Suppose fraud were detected later, and you were on record as agreeing with it.
  8. Well, that presumes that there is ever a vacancy in the office of president which, if the rules in RONR apply, will not ordinarily happen. Upon acceptance of the president's resignation, the vice president became president, so the resulting vacancy is now in the vice presidency, unless the bylaws otherwise provide.
  9. I believe that the only way to "attend" a meeting is to attend the meeting, unless "attend" is defined in some way other than being present. And I doubt that can be accomplished by an ordinary main motion.
  10. Without a quorum the agenda can't be adopted. The only actions that can be taken are those necessary to secure a quorum, or to adjourn the meeting (possibly to another time). They can recess and wait if they like, and talk about whatever they like while recessed.
  11. It appeared to me that all the answers were serious. But since you didn't answer any of the questions raised, it's not possible for any of the answers to be complete.
  12. Yes. The correct person to sign as Secretary Pro Tem is the person who actually was secretary pro tem at that meeting.
  13. Even easier. You can just vote. There is no "recusal" event in RONR, which does not deal with the subject except to say that people should not vote on a question in which they have a personal or pecuniary interest not shared by other members. Outside of an actual judicial context, what people call "recusal" just amounts to an announcement that one does not intend to take part in considering a particular question, presumably on account of some real or perceived conflict of interest. Nothing happens officially as a result of the announcement. I suppose if you change your mind, you can simply announce that fact, but that's no more official than the original announcement.
  14. There is no "chain of command". What is your actual question?
  15. Okay, well, what I said was that they both refer to numbers--not necessarily integers, but certainly rational numbers. Obviously 20 refers to twenty. And "2/3 of the voting members" refers to a fraction of the voting members. That's not a differential equation, as in calculus. It does not refer to a derivative; its rate of change is a constant, 2/3. And it's not an equation because it has no equal sign. But it does refer to a number. It refers to that number of members which meets or exceeds 2/3 of the total. But that's not the point. The fact that a fixed number or a fraction of the membership are both acceptable ways to refer to a quorum is not in dispute. The question is whether it refers to 2/3 of the membership, being present, or 2/3 of the membership that are present. The former interpretation makes sense, the latter does not, as it means that a quorum is always less than the number present. That could not be the intent, because no sane person who had that intent would phrase it in that way. Either the former interpretation was intended, or the author of that language does not understand what the word "qourum" means, and was trying to express something else entirely.
  16. Then, once accepted, the resignation creates a vacancy on the board, and you'll need to consult your bylaws regarding how vacancies get filled.
  17. The president does not have the authority to accept a resignation, unless that's a special power in your bylaws. A resignation, in parliamentary terms, is a request to be excused from a duty, and granting it would require a motion and a majority vote.
  18. I disagree. Take the sentence: “At a general meeting, two thirds (2/3) of voting members present at any general meeting shall constitute a quorum”. Strike the words 2/3 of the voting members, and replace them with the words twenty members. And we have: “At a general meeting, twenty members present at any general meeting shall constitute a quorum”. Either one makes sense. And since "twenty members" and "two-thirds of the voting members" both refer to a number, the substitution would appear to make sense as well. Is it well written? Umm, no. I'm not particularly fond of the repetition of "general meeting", since members' presence at any general meeting can be assumed to have occurred at a general meeting. That alone would lead me to go back to that page and see if I had read it wrong. If the needless duplication were stricken, we have: "At a general meeting, 2/3 of the voting members shall constitute a quorum." ... which is getting better. But clearly the language is ambiguous, or we wouldn't be debating it, so it requires interpretation by the society itself.
  19. That's entirely possible. But we both know that ain't where the smart money is.
  20. A member is a person. One person, one vote, one present for quorum. You count heads, not hats. And I can't tell whether the answer is six from your description. It's not clear--if everyone shows up, how many people are in the room? Your non-standard "50 percent plus one" quorum requirement might also come into play. It looks like someone meant to say "a majority of members constitutes a quorum" and got it wrong. For example, suppose you had 9 breathing members. A majority of 9 would be 5. But by your rule, 50% of 9 is 4.5, plus one is 5.5, so you'd need a minimum of 5.5 people to conduct business, which will require six human beings to accomplish.
  21. We were discussing renewability, but I don't think we mentioned recording in the minutes. Motions that die for lack of a second are recorded in the minutes.
×
×
  • Create New...