Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

TheGrandRascal

Members
  • Posts

    34
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by TheGrandRascal

  1. To J.J.: The answer to that is obviously either a "yes" or a "no," so based upon you own opinions you should be able to privide a followup response for either of these two possibilities. In other words, you can readily answer your own question: "If special meetings ARE permitted, then I would say _________." "If special meetings ARE NOT permitted, then my response would be _________."
  2. I had something like that in mind... That, plus the fact that in many corporate meetings it is often customary to waive meeting notice when all members are present. N.B., I have quoted laser158689 in full, in order to avoid any possibility of making him or her appear to say anything that he or she did not say.
  3. To Richard Brow (and Josh Martin): Please note that I isolate YOUR quote above, only because it is the specific point I wish to reply to. I personally consider it wasteful of space and confusing to include an entire quotation when much of that quotation is not directly germane to the point I wish to discuss. This was my attitude with Mr.Martin's response as well. It was never my intention to misquote him or to make it apoear he said something he did not. If, by trimning and quoting only the immediate text I am answering has caused confusion, or the disparagement of Mr. Martin, I most humbly and sincerely apologize. My only intention was to point out that, as originally worded, the hypothetical rule that Mr. Martin provided was flawed; and to suggest an improved version. It was not my intent to miquote him. I only isolated the theoretical rule because that was the focus of my reply. I regret that my doing so has caused confusion. Since my preferred procedure is objectionable, I shall hanceforth refrain from abbreviating quotes for relevance, and will quote them in their entirety. I trust that this will be satisfactory.
  4. You were a tad hasty with that wording: What does "all members of the assembly" mean in this context? The correct wording would be, "If all enrolled members are present at the same location at the same time, they may agree to spontsneously hold a special meeting, withot notice." Again, that is NOT a rule I would recommend... but it would be interesting to see!
  5. Let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that they have all of these, and that their Parliamentary Authority is RONR-12. I must remind you all of a quotation I cannot now find, but distinctly remember (though perhaps not in these precise words): "Rules exist for the protection of the minority, and need not be strictly enforced where there is no minority to protect." The rules about meeting notice protect absentees; but in this case, there are none. The rule should therefore be waivable.
  6. No, I'm not referring to a special meeting, which is called in accordance with particular rules. I'm referring to a completely and totally impromtu meeting. Imagine there's a small social group of, say, six members, who consider themselves a Club. (They have -- and need -- very few rules. But one of these sets a regular meeting time.) Well, one day, in between their regular meetings, it just so happens that all six of them turn up at the local library at the same time! Hmmm! They have a plenum -- there are no absentees -- and they certainly have a quorum, so couldn't they waive any notice requirement and simply "declare themselves a meeting"? What would such a meeting be competent to consider? Only unfinished business? Only new business? And what about that motion that at their previous meeting was "postponed to our next regular meeting" (which this one most definitely ain't)? It's definitely not a procedure I would recommend for any but the tiniest and non-serious of groups owing to the potential for legal troubles, but I am interested to know if such an "impromptu meeting" is even at least theoretically possible... Thoughts?
  7. Hmmm. So, a provision in the bylaws that "the President shall preside at all meetings" is a Special Rule of Order (according to footnote 5, to the second sentence in 62:12, RONR 12th, p.617), but a provision that "the President shall appoint the chair of all special committees" is not a Special Rule of Order? Now how did we arrive at that strange distinction, I should like to know...???
  8. Excuse me and PMFJI, but do please remember that most Main Motions do not require previous notice! Unless we happen to be specifically discussing referral of a motion that does require previous notice, it would appear to me that Mr. Elsman's reasoning here is inapplicable.
  9. Standard Disclaimer -- IANAL -- but my understanding, is that the singular does NOT include the plural, but that the plural DOES include the singular.
  10. 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 more aporopriate; and in any case, it's their own rule.
  11. 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 matters not that, in an Assembly of 100 members, that 98 of them wish to adopt the motion and move on -- they are held hostage to the parliamentary maneuvering of the remaining two members! I consider it highly noteworthy that not all parliamentary authorities include the motion to Postpone Indefinitely; there are some that omit it altogether. I only wish that RONR was one of them.
  12. 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?
  13. 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 context! But at the same time, the Assembly might wish to make an exception in the case of a member with good reason to "mis-park." Are we then to conclude that the clause embodied in this rule's last sentence is invalid? PART TWO: I also ponder the opposite case: can an otherwise suspendable rule, declare itself to be unsuspendable? Consider the following hypothetical bylaw provision: "The President shall appoint the chairmen and members of all standing committees. This rule may not be suspended." As unwise as such a rule is (I myself would most VIGOROUSLY oppose ANY inclusion of that last sentence! Yeesh!), would such a clause actually be binding?
  14. O.K., thanks -- somehow, I completely missed the link to the PDF. I've got it now. 😊
  15. 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.)
  16. 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 nice if Robert's Rules gave some guidance on how an assembly is supposed to resolve such an issue. The other reason that this intrigues me, is that there are a few interesting ways in which the Robert's Rules Association can respond to this thread. 1. No ambiguity -- ignore thread. 2. Ambiguity: resolve by removing the proposed ambiguous text ("Motion carried").* 3. Retain the ambiguous text, and use it to illustrate the manner in which possible Bylaw ambiguities are resolved. One thing I notice is that this thread clearly suggests that, absent a clear and overwhelming consensus, there would probably need to be two votes -- the first to establish that an ambiguity actually exists, and the second to decide how that ambiguity should be resolved. And, of course, as "resolving the ambiguity" does not, in itself, amend the Bylaw (since RONR suggests its prompt amendment), there will need to be yet a third vote (actually amending the Bylaw) before the matter can finally be put to bed! All told, pretty good reasons to avoid ambiguity in one's Bylaws... ----- * By "Motion carried," I'm of course referring to the "motion" I posed in my original post.
  17. 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.
  18. 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?
  19. As in, "Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised." RRONR is a perfectly standard abbreviation used here. RRONR-11 refers to the 11th edition.
  20. "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!
  21. 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 shall..." Take note! By specifying an exact day ("second Tuesday in April"), this provision unwittingly removes the Society's power to alter the meeting date in the particular case of the annual meeting, because this provision requires that the annual meeting must be held on the second Tuesday in April! This has long been a pet peeve of mine! Excising a mere four words corrects this: "I hereby move to amend Article V, Section 2 of the Sample Bylaws, by striking out the words 'on the second Tuesday.' " That leaves us with, "The regular meeting in April shall be known as the annual meeting, and shall...," ...Which is perfectly fine, because the term "regular meeting" is already defined in Section 1. Better still, by not specifying any specific day for that "regular meeting," this wording preserves the Society's power, at need, to change the date even of the annual meeting. And, by the way -- it's much better to use "must" or "will," rather than "shall." --TheGrandRascal
  22. 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 organizations have a periodic -- but not necessarily a continuous -- need for. Hence my term, "recurring committee" -- a committee with aspects of both the standing, and the special, committee. It's a type of committee that I've never seen any Parliamentary authority (Robert's or otherwise) take any cognizance of.
×
×
  • Create New...