Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

242 profile views
  1. Standard Disclaimer -- IANAL -- but my understanding, is that the singular does NOT include the plural, but that the plural DOES include the singular.
  2. At variance with RONR? No question. But badly written? A rule is not badly written, good Sir, simply because it happens to differ from RONR! In fact, "badly written" is a matter of opinion -- and not mine. I happen to think both differences to be at least minimally appropriate: 1. In an assembly so small (tiny, even -- nine members!?) I wouldn't expect (or want) any motion to need a second. (For that matter, under the rules for small boards and committees, this is entirely valid procedure, even within RONR!) 2. In an assembly that teensy, a tie vote overturning the chair is probably
  3. Personally, I consider the motion to Postpone Indefinitely to be one of the most obnoxious motions imaginable: 1. It forces a discussion-weary assembly into another entire round of debate. 2. It causes the majority wishing to adopt a measure to be forced to vote for it twice -- once by voting down the Indefinite Postponement, and then again to adopt the actual main motion itself! 3. And, it accomplishes all of this, NOT by being adopted (which would be bad enough yet acceptable, since the assembly would have voted for it), but merely by being moved and seconded! Thus, it matter
  4. O.K., so supposing a rule within the bylaws is in the nature of a rule of order, and concludes with, "This rule may not be suspended." What then?
  5. RONR-12th 2:23: "Rules that have any application outside a meeting context... cannot be suspended." PART ONE: Hmmm. Why so absolute? Must we infer that any appended "suspension clause" is therefore null and void? Consider the following hypothetical rule: "Resolved, That members shall park their cars in the parking lot and not on the street fronting the meeting hall. Any cars so parked will be towed. This rule may be suspended, in a particular instance and for the benefit of a particular member, by a two-thirds vote." The parking of cars is most definitely outside a meeting
  6. O.K., thanks -- somehow, I completely missed the link to the PDF. I've got it now. 😊
  7. I haven't been here in awhile; coming in today, I find with astonishment that the entire website has been completely remade. Is there any reason for, or commentary about, this radical change? Where do I find the list of changes from the 11th edition of RONR to the 12th? (P.S.: I liked the previous version of the website better.)
  8. There seems to be a disagreement here as to whether or not the verbiage I've cited does, or whether it does not, create a legitimate and honest-to-goodness ambiguity within the Sample Bylaws... just as, I am quite sure, there would be a similar disagreement within the Sample Society, if it actually existed. That interests me, in part, because while RONR clearly says that only a simple majority vote is needed to resolve an ambiguity, it says nothing at all about the vote needed to decide whether an ambiguity actually exists! No doubt a majority vote would be needed here, too, but it'd be n
  9. Seems to me that the issue here is not so much redundancy -- because there can be occasions when it makes good sense to be redundant -- rather, the issue here seems to be unnecessary redundancy. That's just begging for trouble.
  10. My view is that if there is even the possibility of confusion or conflict in this matter -- if it is even the tiniest bit ambiguous -- then that more than amply justifies the amendment proposed. Why risk buying trouble?
  11. As in, "Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised." RRONR is a perfectly standard abbreviation used here. RRONR-11 refers to the 11th edition.
  12. "Absentees who are present"...?!? Yeek! Dude! Go look up the word absentee in a dictionary! Good gravy Marie, that's a far worse error than any typo!
  13. THE TRAP IN RRONR-11's SAMPLE BYLAWS: Robert's Sample Bylaws contain a Trap! Article V, Section 1, states that "The regular meetings of the Society shall be held on the second Tuesday of each month from September to May inclusive, unless otherwise ordered by the Society" -- that is, the Society has the power to change the date of an individual regular meeting at need. (And, BTW, kudos to them for adding the word "inclusive"!) This is perfectly fine. BUT, the Trap comes in Section 2: "The regular meeting on the second Tuesday in April shall be known as the annual meeting, and sha
  14. Actually, there very much are combination "standing/special" committees. I call them "recurring committees." Just like standing committees, they are usually provided for in the bylaws, and have official names -- but, unlike standing committees, they are usually needed only periodically, or on exceptional occasions, or at certain times. Typical examples within ordinary societies include: trial committee, auditing committee, nominating committee, or election committee. As you can see if you stop to ponder these examples, these are all committees that many org
  • Create New...