Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Sean Hunt

Members
  • Content Count

    1,111
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Sean Hunt

  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) al
  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
  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?
  16. But people who are not members would not ordinarily be allowed access to them.
  17. General orders are items that we deliberately set to come up at the meeting. Unfinished Business is business that was not specifically postponed or set to come up at the current meeting, but was under consideration at the previous meeting and was not finished. The only time a vote is required to introduce a motion is if that motion is otherwise out of order and the rules must be suspended to allow its introduction. Otherwise, once the motion is seconded, then the chair should state it clearly to the assembly and, if it is debatable, begin recognizing members for debate.
  18. For some reason I thought this thread was going to be about programming languages.
  19. This is not true. RONR, p. 459, l. 12 lists one of the duties of the secretary as being "To sign certified copies of all acts of the society." That said, the signature of the secretary (or of the president) is not what makes an act valid. What makes an act valid is that it has been adopted by the board. A signed copy exists only to serve as a guarantee on the part of the signatories that it was, in fact, adopted. So if the resolution was adopted by the board, then the debt was forgiven, otherwise, it wasn't. If it was adopted, and the member asked for a certified copy (in case the matter
  20. This forum is for discussion of Robert's Rules of Order, we generally don't assist with bylaws interpretation, because there are too many nuances. Bylaws can only properly be read in their entirety, often with an eye to the context in which they were adopted. You should try to contact a local parliamentarian instead, who can take a look at the whole picture and spend more time offering good advice.
  21. From your description, no, it wasn't, because it seems to me that board member A being on the board is wholly unrelated to transferring funds, so the motion for a substitute should have been ruled out of order to begin with. From then, if the motion was passed, it should have amended the main motion. But if it didn't, then it sounds like a bit of a mess. Ultimately, the important thing is what the chair stated at the time of the vote. For instance, if the chair stated the motion to substitute as "The question is now on the motion to remove board member A from the water authority boar
  22. This is not specifically a typo, per se, but I feel that the paragraph at the bottom of pg. 263 and the top of pg. 264 could use some love. It begins by saying that a rule protecting absentees cannot be suspended, and then goes on to imply, but not directly say, that they can be suspended if there are no absentees. I think it should be explicit that, if all people protected by the rule are present, then the rule can be suspended (with the exception noted in the footnote). Additionally, I think it would be helpful to refer to this paragraph in the index under "suspension of notice of meetings"
  23. This is probably correct if the elections aren't likely to be especially contentious. If you have two small factions each trying to elect their own board, but the majority is likely to go over to the nominating committee after a ballot or two, it will be over quick. If not, then the one thing I would be genuinely worried about is that you need to make sure you can keep the venue late. What you don't want to have happen is that the convention venue kicks you out and you have 2600 people trying to finish an election in a pub. Otherwise, after a round or two of balloting, you will have a con
  24. I'm not sure there's an exact citation for this, but the important point here is that there is no procedure for a member to, unilaterally, withdraw from an election. Indeed, they can be nominated and elected against their will. (If this happens, they can decline the election.) Once you realize this, it follows that once nominations have closed, the set of nominees ordinarily doesn't change and, therefore, neither should the ballots.
×
×
  • Create New...