Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Sean Hunt

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Sean Hunt

  • Rank
    Sean Hunt

Profile Information

  • Location:
    Waterloo, ON, Canada

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. It sounds like your organization (if I hazard a guess, a student one?) has much deeper problems than simple procedure. It might be time to rally the pitchforks.
  2. I am inclined to agree that the default language in RONR does not mean that it overrides statutory defaults, except for the one regarding proxy voting. EDIT: Although the footnote on p. 580 would imply the opposite.
  3. Surely the Call of the House is the motion described in RONR that is least used (at least, in assemblies following RONR).
  4. I have to disagree with you there, Mr. Merritt. RONR allows an assembly to authorize a committee to meet by teleconference without any special authorization from the bylaws, and it would be rather absurd to say that the committee can meet by teleconference but members not present in the same physical location as someone else (the chair? a randomly selected member? Whoerver is closest to the clubhouse?) cannot vote. So the answer to the original question comes down to first determining whether an applicable authority (most likely bylaws but possibly also a statute or terms of reference) allow the member to participate by phone. If they are allowed to do so, then they are fully participating and have all the same rights and privileges as if they were physically present. If, however, they do not, then the member is considered absent while listening in, and therefore does not count towards quorum, cannot move motions, cannot vote without specific provisions to that effect, and so on.
  5. I am unfortunately not a member of the AIP or NAP. While I probably should stop that, other things are occupying my time.
  6. Would anyone be interested in sharing stories of things that went particularly badly? I'm involved with rewriting an organization's bylaws at the moment and have found a truly heinous clause that you all may find amusing.
  7. Rather than presenting a theoretical argument, I'll advance one based on interpretation: This reads, to me, as an exception that proves the rule, and therefore it can be used for other votes without such express authorization. Also, to jstackpo, the Borda count has its own theoretical difficulties. You may find Arrow's Theorem, which states that every system of evaluating a preferential ballot has flaws, to be interesting.
  8. It seems to me that the discussion is merely one of form, anyway. It's clear that if an assembly has the power to alter its own bylaws, then it can insert and remove an exception at will (in accordance with the usual procedures to do so, of course).
  9. I cannot think of a good reason to reject such a motion.
  10. In retrospect, I think I had myself confused with notices. Sorry!
  11. I don't have my copy of the Rules on me, but my memory is that a nomination can be unilaterally withdrawn, until nominations close, at which point it can only be withdrawn by unanimous consent.
  12. An agenda that explicitly excludes a provision to adjourn after the remaining items in it are completed may make it difficult to reach New Business, however.
  13. Yes, I agree. There are two reasons. First is that there are rules that cannot be suspended. Asking to suspend the parliamentary authority in its entirety includes a request to suspend these rules, and this makes it prima facie out of order. One could argue that, with a careful analysis of both parliamentary authorities to determine if anything in the Standard Code conflicts with an unsuspendable rule in Robert's Rules, it could be determined that no such rule would actually be suspended, I would nonetheless argue that the interpretation of the Standard Code may be different or otherwise qualified and that I wouldn't have the confidence necessary to rule that motion in order. Second is that the rule that any motion to suspend the rules must be a motion to suspend the rules for a specific purpose. You can suspend the rules to change the rules of debate or to allow non-members to speak, but you cannot simply suspend the rules for no purpose. There are provisions in Robert's Rules which provide for cases that are unprovided for in the Standard Code, and so it is not clear why these provisions would be suspended. What alternate rule is being substituted? I agree with Weldon Merritt's suggestion that the rules could be suspended to allow one piece of procedure from the other parliamentary authority to be used.
  14. At this stage, they are but a draft. The secretary is free to do with them as he or she wishes. If there are any disputes, then those can only be properly resolved at the next meeting of the members.
  15. Perhaps an aside: Is there a paragraph where RONR defines that even when the board has the full powers of the assembly of the society, it is not empowered to take disciplinary action?
  • Create New...