Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Kim Goldsworthy

Members
  • Posts

    4,044
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Kim Goldsworthy

  1. 15 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

    Curiosity question. If an individual can be an ex-officio member whether he is identified that way or not, why does RONR say ex-officio thirty-two times if the term has no particular influence on anything? How do I go about appointing the treasurer to the finance committee without him being ex-officio, that is, he is compelled to attend and is counted for quorum purposes. What term do I use in such a case? Not-ex-officio? But if ex-officio does not mean anything ... Oh dear. My head hurts.

    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. On 11/7/2018 at 12:53 PM, Glen Hall said:

    Thus my question about its use in this article.  If we say "Any person who is a former President of the organization shall be a member of the Board if his/her dues are current," I guess we have to say that they are "ex officio members" because of an office they used to hold?

    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. 6 minutes ago, Fighter for Rights said:

    If an expenditure exceeds the estimate

    should it need approval

    even if it does not exceed the 3,200?

    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? 

     

  6. 6 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

    The next question is,

    if the President-Elect does become President in the event of a vacancy,

    what happens when the current term ends?

    Does he remain President for a full term, or is he replaced by the new President-Elect who is selected by the board to fill the vacancy in that office? 

    Again, the rule is ambiguous, as all that the rule says is that the President-Elect “shall automatically succeed to President,” providing no clarification as to when or in what circumstances this does or does not occur.

    > 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".

  7. >

    22 minutes ago, Brett Woodburn said:

    The elective Officers of the Association shall be a President, a President-elect, who shall automatically succeed to President, and a Secretary/Treasurer. Officers shall be elected for terms of one (1) year, or until their successors are elected and qualified, whichever shall last occur.

    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.

  8. 8 hours ago, J. J. said:

    Question 1:  May the chair call the police and direct them to remove the member or does the assembly have to vote to have the police brought in to remove the member?

    Question 2a:  If the chair may do so on his own, may his decision be appealed?

    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.

  9. 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. :(

     

  10. 9 hours ago, DJ100 said:

     

    S1.) We apparently voted to approve something in the past.

    kg: "We"? Who is "we"? -- President? VP? Associate VP? Policy Committee? Department?

    9 hours ago, DJ100 said:

    S2.) However, the item was rejected higher up and returned to us to be revised.

    kg: "Us"? Who is "us"?

    9 hours ago, DJ100 said:

    S3.) Some people are saying since "99% of it is the same" we don't need to vote on it again.

    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"(?!).

    9 hours ago, DJ100 said:

    S4.) Additionally, they are saying, they can simply make minor changes and send it right back up the chain of command without a vote.

    kg: "They" can make minor changes? -- Who is "they"? Does "they" vote, or just passively push X along?

    S5.) Do we get to or have to vote again when something is sent back for revisions? 

    kg: Yes. -- How else will the "approval" occur at all?

    S6.) Once an issue is voted on (if it was; which is probably another issue in itself!), can we vote on it again and can we change our vote?

    kg: You are free to AMEND that which has been adopted but found to be flawed. So, YES.

     

     

  11. 1 hour ago, Guest Betty Whitehurst said:

    What is the correct way of addressing an officer who is also the chair of a committee when calling for a report from that committee?

    If the chair of the membership committee is also the vice president, would you say " Vice President ____will now give us a report on the membership committee"? Or

    "Would _________give us a report on the membership committee"?

    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.

     

  12. On 10/2/2017 at 0:56 PM, Gaisie said:

    A previous secretary omitted putting a motion in the minutes by mistake.

    We are are sure the motion was made but unfortunately we do not remember who made it or 2nd it as it was a couple years ago and under different officers.

    How do we remedy this situation? 

    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".

     

  13. On 9/20/2017 at 4:40 PM, smb said:

     

    The Bylaws provide that committees are

    appointed by the President

    with the 'approval of the Executive Committee, and

    ratification by the Board of Directors.'  

    [...]

    The Executive Committee has  full power to 'act for the Board of Directors between meetings of the Board."  

    [...]

    The question is, what is the effective date of a committee appointment -- upon approval of the Exec Comm or ratification by the Board? Or is it upon appointment by the President, unless disapproved by the Exec Comm or Board?

    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.

  14. On 9/5/2017 at 1:58 PM, TrinityLegacy said:

    Q. If a committee makes a recommendation to the Executive committee (EC),

    does the EC have to entertain a motion to accept the recommendation from the committee, when it still has to to go to the general body for approval?

    A. No.

    • Nothing in Robert's Rules of Order would suggest that an Executive Committee has any such authority.

    • Nothing in Robert's Rules of Order says that a given standing committee's, or ad-hoc committee's, recommendation must pass through: (a.) a board; (b.) an executive committee, (c.) any body other than the responsible body (for that given action item).

    Indeed, it seems that there is an unnecessary duplication of efforts going on, when all the Executive Committee needs to do is say, "Thank you, for keeping us informed."

     

  15. 1 hour ago, System Control said:

    If an ex-officio of a board but not a paid general membership can they still vote in a general membership?

    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.

  16. "... 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.)

  17. 3 hours ago, Guest Jt9010 said:

    • can the board legally appoint a chief?

    or, in my opinion

    • should hold a special election?

    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.

  18. On 8/4/2017 at 5:49 AM, Dutchman said:

    The bylaws read as follows...

    "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."

    • Personally I interpret this part of our bylaws to mean the action of moving to director exempt requires no vote or board action and is solely at the discretion of the person meeting these requirements.

    • The Point of Order called suggested a board vote must be held for the person to become director exempt as it is an action and all actions require a vote.

    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.

     

  19. 2 hours ago, smb said:

    It's an unusual set-up.  

    The standing rules for this association's conventions are in the association's policy manual.  

    Per the bylaws, the sole authority for approving, amending, rescinding the policy manual resides in the Board of Directors.

    The convention delegates have never voted to adopt or amend the convention standing rules -- they are a fait accompli. 

    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.

  20. 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.

     

  21. 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?

     

  22. Analogy:
     

    Quote

     

    In deepest, darkest Africa, there is a tribe of natives.
    Their parliamentary rule for adoption is different from Robert's Rules  of Order.

    • Under their tribal parliamentary law, "a motion is adopted when the OKAPI [a four-footed mammal with a neck and horns like a GIRAFFE, but with striped legs like a ZEBRA] passes completely behind the chairman."

    As it so happens, a meeting is convened.
    As it so happens, a motion is pending.

    Suddenly, an animal passes completely behind the chairman!
    Q. Was it the okapi?

    The scribe takes down a vote of the membership present and voting:
      • 33% saw the back half of the animal and said, "Zebra!"
      • 33% saw the front half of the animal and said, "Giraffe!"
      • 34% saw the full profile of the animal and said "Okapi!"

    The chair paused, and went with the 34% of the members who said "Okapi!", and ruled that the motion was ADOPTED.

    The meeting adjourns. Sine die.

    The next day, a skillful village hunter reports back to the tribe.
    The animal which had passed behind the chairman was NOT an okapi.

    The animal was actually a zebra, with a serious abnormal discoloration, which could have fooled the casual observer into thinking that the animal was an okapi, or perhaps even a giraffe.

    Now a parliamentary issue arises.

    The chair had announced as "adopted" that which SHOULD HAVE BEEN announced as "rejected" -- if the tribe had only "gotten the facts straight" at that crucial hour!

    Q. What shall the tribe do about the motion which was erroneously announced as "adopted"?

    The modern parliamentary rule is clear.
    The members assembled had every opportunity to correct the chair on A POINT OF PHYSICAL FACT. -- An unsuspendable rule, at that!

    But no member spoke up, and thus 100% of the members allowed a FALSE "FACT" to determine the outcome of the motion.

    Today, such a  motion would stand as announced by the chair, namely, "adopted".

    Q. Can a member argue legitimately, "Continuing breach?" -- A physical fact cannot be suspended, you know.

    The 21st Century answer is, "No." -- At that crucial hour, 100% of the members present agreed tacitly with the chair's (erroneous) announcement of the physical fact -- even if they collectively erred on the "true facts" of the threshold necessary for adoption.

    Bottom line, 21st century parliamentary law:
      • There is no continuing breach.
      • The motion stands as "adopted".
      • The members present (all, collectively) had interpreted the facts at hand as "one which represents 'adoption' of the pending motion".
      • The fact that no Point of Order was raised in a timely manner is a crucial factor.

    ###

     

     

×
×
  • Create New...