Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thank you! Yes, that summary clarifies things for me. I appreciate all the help.
  2. Thank you for replying. My latter confusion was two-fold: in reference to whether this meeting would fall under the "subsequent meeting" instruction of pp. 501 if a meeting is improperly called are the decisions made binding at all But if it's determined that this is "a dead horse," then I understand and will ask no more.
  3. I am confused by various of the last replies. Mr. Brown, I explained above that we were dealing with a particular issue. So may I please ask your opinions about my last two comments are? Others would be, of course, welcomed as well. Thank you
  4. A chair does not have veto power, true. BUT, the chair calls subsequent meetings, right? If the meeting was not properly called it's not a meeting, it's a gathering, right? And at a gathering decisions are not binding, right? Mr. Brown - our committee met initially to discuss a particular issue and determine a course of action. We had adjourned with action items and knowing we might have to meet again to finalize actions to be taken regarding the issue. We had been emailing opinions back and forth which got so cumbersome that it was decided we would need to meet physically again and that's the meeting I was trying to coordinate when a committee member took over determining a place and time of his convenience without consulting me.
  5. Thank you all for your replies. In summary, this is my take away based on your discussions given the information I've tried to supply: A complete reading of my committee's emails would prove beyond reasonable doubt that a clear and constant, not drawn out, back and forth discussion in determining a date for a meeting convenient to all was being carried on. The phrase of "fail to call a meeting" (p.499) would not make sense to me, as one reply read, in the middle of trying to set up a meeting. In addition, the issue we were dealing with was a continuation of a previous meeting so the clause in pg. 501 would also seem to apply. So my conclusion, to be sent as an email to my committee, is that the calling of that meeting by said members would be classified as improperly called. With that said (and I didn't know whether this should be a separate thread) ...., within an improperly called/convened/attended meeting, what happens to or what is to be done with any decisions made there? We had been tasked with deciding about a bylaw amendment. What if those that gathered at that meeting came up with language for the bylaw amendment, prepared a plan to present the bylaw amendment to our parent organization, and started to execute that plan in spite of my objections?
  6. We are a standing committee. The first meeting for purposes of the current issue we were discussing was November 6th. There have been multiple emails regarding thoughts about the issues and members agreed that we needed to meet. Emails were being exchanged during this past weekend (Nov. 30-Dec. 5) to set up a convenient meeting Dec. 6 I received the notification that a meeting was being called at a so-so time and place by a committee member.
  7. This is kind of the question. RONR says "fails to call a meeting." It doesn't say refuses to call or is slow in calling a meeting, just that he fails to do so. Where is the interpretation of he's "failed" to do it? When a committee member thinks the chair is too slow? In my case, I was in the middle ofemails trying to determine a time. My original question is whether I "failed" to call a meeting.
  8. Thank you for the exact wording. So the words "won't for any reason" are added - hyperbole maybe? Still, would you say that I as chair would be charged with "fails to call a meeting" while I'm working on calling a meeting?
  9. I am the Chairman of a standing committee (Bylaws, mind you), with 3 other members and our committee has been working on an issue. We had met once and since then had had some communications via email. It was too burdensome to continue large email threads so I had been working on setting a time and place for another face to face meeting to continue our work. In the midst of getting feedback from members, one of the committee member chose to set up a time and place for a meeting on his own, contacted the other committee members about it. I told him privately that the meeting would not work for me one due to illness and second due to a conflict with another meeting within our organization which I am a part of as well. Said member replied that he had already contacted the other members and that I could simply send in my opinions via email or I could call via speakerphone. I replied that I was the chairman, that this meeting would be set up when I could facilitate it, hopefully, as my illness would allow, in 4-5 days. The following was the reply I received: " It is not true you are the “one” who can call a meeting. If for any reason the chair won’t call a meeting, two members of the committee can according to Robert’s Rule, and a quorum of the committee must be present to conduct business" I don't believe those are the right words in RONR, more like a paraphrase with some added verbiage. But considering that I was in the midst of planning a meeting, maybe not as fast as this member wanted, would I be in violation of said rule? Thank you.
  10. The members are elected to 3 year terms and no set number who serve is listed.
  11. Hello. We have a committee that is setup per bylaws whose members are elected to operate in a rotating basis. The bylaws say that "one-third of the members are to rotate off" and one year must pass before they can be nominated again. We are considering some bylaw changes because that committee has unfortunately not been setup recently in sets of 3 and we are having difficulty getting people to accept working on the committee. One of the the proposed changes is to add the word "approximately one-third." I am wondering the effect of adding that word would have - how do you determine "approximately" when it comes to people? Shouldn't the bylaws be clear without rounding off errors? Thank you!
  12. Thank you. I wanted to make sure I had not misread the interpretation of the motion.
  13. Our membership's primary functions are to reach and educate others, and we have groups, considered organizations, divided by age and/or gender to carry the functions out. These organizations are not specifically named nor explicitly defined in the bylaws. Many were simply set up at the time of our founding. However our bylaws do state that only organizations explicitly voted for and apporved by the assembly will be considered organizations of our group. We have a Nominating Committee that prepares nominations for positions within those existing organizations, with a timed process to do so, including naming the chairs of each. There are newer Board members who have an issue with the lack of definition going so far as to say that they can't tell what is or is not an organization. So, rather than give the issue to the Nominating Committee or the Bylaws Committee, they took it upon themselves to make a moti0on to amend the bylaws to say that they "would recommend the organizations needed for the coming year."
  14. Hello! A board of directors dutifully brought an motion to amend the bylaws. It had sought and received the agreement of the Bylaws committee and reported that to the assembly. When presented to the assembly, in the midst of the bylaw amendment discussion, a motion was made and seconded to commit the motion to the Bylaws Committee. The moderator of the business meeting ruled that the motion to commit was out of order because the committee being referred to had already discussed the motion. Was that a correct ruling? Thank you.
  15. Hello! Currently our assembly uses a process via a Nominating Committee to annually bring up for election nominees to serve in various positions, both committees and organizations. This sentence was added to the process outlined in the bylaws: "Annually the Director Board shall recommend the organizations of the assembly." If no further action is indicated in a bylaw, does the phrase "the board shall recommend" by itself carry any authority of action (implicitly) that obligates the assembly to act on the recommendation? If the assembly is not instructed to vote on the recommendation is it simply treated as information? I tried to be brief and to the point but can give more detail if not enough was given here. Thank you.
  • Create New...