Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Kim Goldsworthy

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Kim Goldsworthy

  1. Why? English grammar/syntax observation: • "Ex-officio" is an adjective. • "Ex officio" is a noun. One hyphen makes the difference. • RONR uses the adjective to describe quickly what otherwise would be done in a sentence. • RONR uses the noun to describe the party involved. *** RONR has a special case for presidents who sit ex-officio. RONR implies that non-presidents do not pick up the same perqs -- as your hypothetical treasurer would have. That is, it is NOT the case that "all parties who sit ex officio do not count toward the quorum". -- RONR reserves the "not counted toward quorum" perq as being a "presidents only" perq of office.
  2. I may have mis-read the original poster. You are thinking that "ex officio" must refer to a specific NAMED office. -- No! "Ex officio" can refer to any status. E.g., If you have a customized rule which implies "All past presidents shall sit on [body X]", then this is true ex officio, too, because as soon as one loses the status of "being a past president", then one simultaneously loses the second position. E.g., Assume a customized rule, "All spouses of gentlemen members are automatically members of the Ladies Auxilliary." -- This is an ex officio position. -- Why? Because as soon as one loses (a.) the status of being the spouse of a gentleman-member, then one loses (b.) the right of membership to the secondary body. *** "... by way of holding office ..." "... by virtue of the office ..." It is a pathway. A conduit. A branch. Always automatic. Always contingent.
  3. The original poster is confusing two concepts • The term "ex officio" does NOT mean "former officer" or "former office holder". • The term "ex officio" means "by way of holding office" or "through the office" -- and thus one simultaneously holds a second position automatically. E.g., If I sit ex officio on a committee or board, then that MUST imply I am holding another office/position/honor/stewardship at the same time. And, when I lose that stewardship, honor, etc., then I automatically lose my seat on that board/committee. Instantly and automatically.
  4. At the second meeting, which was on day two of the two day convention, a point of order was made immediately -- after calling the meeting to order -- that a quorum was not present. *** Without a quorum, no binding decisions can be made. So, the chair cannot create a binding precedent, nor undo a binding precedent, in a quorumless meeting. So, the day-one decision stands, for now. -- Until your 3rd meeting, when a quorum is present, and the point(s) of order can be turned into a permanent binding decision.
  5. Guest Zev, See RONR, "scope of notice", for amendments, pages 307-308. Note that "40" is NOT beyond the scope of their given notice.
  6. Are you saying _________?: • IF an expenditure DOES exceed the estimate of $3200, • THEN the expenditure needs approval, • EVEN IF the expenditure DOES NOT exceed the estimate of $3200. ??? How is this even logically possible?
  7. > What happens when the current term ends? I would key-in on the descriptor, "automatic". If the circumstances are such that automatic-ness is impossible (due to a missing element), then the filling of the open slot(s) are to be done the old fashioned way. -- Via election. When a fixed term ends, then, parliamentary-speaking, that always implies that an election is to occur. You do the assessment: Q. How many open slots are there, as of the end-of-term? as of the hour of election? I think you will see that the slot of all electable officers are subject to election, as there are no "automatic" anythings possible; and, all offices end when the term itself ends, (short of staggered terms for a subset of offices). So, you hold an election, for 100% of the offices (assuming no staggered terms of office, which the original poster did not imply). Put in other words: When a term ends, nobody stays in office "automatically".
  8. > Your structure is non-standard. Robert's Rules of Order assumes that a traditional structure of P *and* VP. - - Whereas, you have P and PE, in lieu of an intervening VP between the two positions. *** Nonetheless, I find your phrase, "... who shall automatically succeed to President ..." quite persuasive toward the interpretation that your PE is virtually your VP, for parliamentary purposes. -- So he/she gets kicked upstairs. *** Since you will have a vacancy in the position of PE, then, once the automatic succession is acknowledged , then, per your own rules, the board fills the open PE slot. I am not pleased with your bylaws' wording or your structure. But you gotta play the cards you were dealt.
  9. A good chair does not take action in a vacuum. The chair ought to announce his intentions. • "If there is no objection, the chair will dial 911 (or "dial hotel security") for a police officer to execute the removal of the member from the hall." If there is an objection, then Robert's Rules is clear on what to do next.
  10. For the sake of this thread, shall we call the targeted member "Z" or "D"? Or are there two parties involved?
  11. Late brain storm . . . *** Perhaps the original poster is confusing: (a.) adopting the whole motion again, with modification; vs. (b.) adopting an AMENDMENT, whereby a single word (or more) is all that is "adopted" -- to be either INSERTED or to be STRUCK OUT. *** That would explain his "chain of custody" to fit a common practice. -- Upper echelon people say, "Tweak here, and tweak there, and we shall then rubber-stamp it as satisfactory." -- And the lower echelon people say, "OK. Will do." In such a case, the answer to the original question (of many) is "No, you don't vote on the whole enchilada again. -- You vote on the specific amendment." *** Or my hunch could be all wet.
  12. kg: "We"? Who is "we"? -- President? VP? Associate VP? Policy Committee? Department? kg: "Us"? Who is "us"? kg: If you are going to change one iota, then there must be a vote. -- Else, without a vote, no change has been "approved" by "you"(?!).
  13. Why not use the title of most applicability? If your VP is the chairman/chairwoman/chair of the X Committee, then why not say so?: "The chair of the X committee will now report." It would not make sense to have a VP present a report from the X committee, to the newbie attendee.
  14. I have a hunch. I think you are indirectly asking, "Can we edit old minutes?" The answer is "Yes, you can amend minutes which have long-since been approved." See the motion in Robert's Rules of Order, "Amend Something Previously Adopted".
  15. The rule implies: 1.) approval via Inferior Body #1. AND 2.) ratification via Superior Body #2. *** Since a rule, "all powers of Body #2 are assumed by Body #1", would make nonsense of the appointment rule, then this "all powers" rule ought not be interpreted as implying that the approval rule is never to be triggered fully. (If it were, then the Board would be 100% shut out every time.) If one interpretation allowed both rules to be executed, and a competing interpretation makes a certain rule impossible to obey, then the first interpretation ought to prevail. *** I think the "all powers" rule is meant to be interpreted as ordinary acts of the body being usurped (here, your board), and not as one which excludes two other involved parties, namely, (a.) your president and (b.) your executive committee. Therefore, in my opinion: • Any rule which invokes a safety net ought to be allowed to function for its purpose. • Any rule which invokes multiple parties to agree -- prior to an action being made final -- ought to be allowed to exercised.
  16. No. If a position is defined as a BOARD position, then there is no automatic carry-over to GENERAL MEMBERSHIP. Likewise: If a position is defined as a GENERAL MEMBERSHIP position, then there is no automatic carry-over to BOARD. To cover the other dropping shoe: If a position is defined as an organization-wide position, i.e., without a MEETING BODY to which it is tied, then the position is probably a generic position, as may be the case with "president" or "secretary", in most organizations. (Beware: some organizations do such draw a line.) *** Example: If a university board of trustees includes the governor of the state as an ex officio member of the board of trustees, the governor is not automatically on any sub-body.
  17. "... legal ..."? I doubt any responder will be able to answer the 50 question for the 50 states in the U.S., regarding whether that state's corporations code will be satisfied by a set of bylaws specifying a parliamentary authority. *** Analogy. If my bylaws reference wikipedia for its definition of "majority vote" or "To Reconsider", then, "Is 'Wikipedia' considered 'bylaws'?" (I don't think so. A parliamentary authority is just that -- a set of parliamentary rules which are consistent with themselves, and which fill gaps which otherwise would be overridden by a superior rule.)
  18. Typically, there are two arrangements which are most seen. • If the board is empowered to handle resignations, then the board will probably be empowered to fill vacancies. • If the board is not empowered to handle resignation, then the board will probably lack the power to fill vacancies. But your constitution & bylaws, in its delegation of duties, ought to say which of the above typical arrangements is YOUR arrangement. Theoretically, the arrangement might be a mix: (a.) board can accept resignations; but (b.) board orders a special election via the general membership. So, you have 2 elements to look for in your documents of governance: (1.) handling resignations, (2.) filling vacancies.
  19. Your question is one of English syntax and grammar, not a question of parliamentary procedure. *** "DIRECTOR EXEMPT. Any Director who has served two (2) or more full terms and wishes to remain active on the Board of Directors shall have the option of assuming the position of Director Exempt." *** Q. Who has the "option of assuming"? A. Any director (who has fulfilled the stated requirement). *** Q. Does the Board have the "option of assuming"? A. No. Only certain directors have the "option of assuming". The board has no "option" and the board cannot "assume". The board has not been given any power to "take away the option" nor "countermand the assumption". *** From the above, it appears that the decision is a unilateral decision, to be uttered, or written, only by certain directors.
  20. It would appear that your organization has MIS-PLACED its "convention standing rules" into the wrong document ("policy manual"). A convention standing rule is a rule which a convention adopts, or at least recognizes and applies as a convention rule. • A board cannot impose standing rules upon a convention (of a non-board body). If you have a rule which says that your board creates policies exclusively, then the board ought not clutter up its policy manual with rules which cannot truly be adopted (or enforced, or acknowledged, or suspended, etc.) by your board. *** Since rules are suspended based on its KIND, then a standing rule is suspendable, assuming the rule is recognized as such. *** If your convention standing rule is "in the nature of a rule of order", then the rule is still suspendable.
  21. Analogy. The situation is parallel with a SECRETARY who is in the hospital with a coma. -- The organization itself never loses the ability to execute the abandoned duties of the secretary. The organization must re-delegate secretarial duties to a volunteer or pinch-hitter, like another officer, or even a non-officer. Or even a committee. Who else is going to execute (a.) the stuffing of envelopes? (b.) the purchase of postage? (c.) the travel expense of going to the post office? No organization "loses" the ability to execute #a, #b, #c, just because the bylaws delegate those duties to a specific officer (who is now in no position to fulfill those duties). *** So it is with a PRESIDENT. So it is with a TREASURER. • Whatever duty is abandoned, is a duty which must be re-delegated. • No single officer can hold hostage the entire organization. • Abandoned duties may be re-absorbed by the organization, and then re-delegated to a real human being who is going to do the actual physical work.
  22. What if . . . *** On a certain Date D1, the chair takes a vote. The assembly hears the chair announce numbers N1 and N2 and say, "There is not two-thirds in the affirmative. The motion is rejected." And the meeting continues onward toward adjournment. *** On a certain Date D2, the chair takes a vote. The assembly hears the chair announce numbers N1 and N2 (exact same two numbers as were heard and counted on Date D1!) and say, "There are two-thirds in the affirmative. The motion is adopted." And the meeting continues onward toward adjournment. *** Q. Without telling you the values of N1 and N2, does the reader agree that both actions (viz., adoption on D1, rejection on D2) stand as announced by the chair?
  23. Because you can only appeal a RULING of the chair. You cannot appeal physical facts, mathematical facts, logical facts. You cannot appeal the vision of the chair, nor the hearing of the chair, nor the taste, smell, touch, of the chair.
  • Create New...