Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

BryanSullo

Members
  • Content Count

    114
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About BryanSullo

  • Birthday 06/17/1975

Profile Information

  • Location:
    Massachusetts
  1. It seemed like the answers to my question would have been applicable to this poster's question. Apparently not. I won't risk causing further offense by asking why.
  2. Guest_blepharospasm_* seems to understand what I was trying, so inelegantly, to convey. I wasn't suggesting that any rules should be suspended, or that the chair in question was actually correct in his actions. I was merely trying to provide a scenario by which a member could correct the mistake without being accusatory: Raising a point of order would seem to accuse the chair of being ignorant of the rules, or willfully disregarding them. That is most likely the truth, but stating it could lead to a contentious situation. By "assuming" the chair thought there was no further business, and gently objecting to the adjournment, the same result could be achieved with a minimum of embarrassment. Since we don't know the full details (Was there an actual Agenda, or just an agenda in the colloquial sense?), my suggestion might be inapplicable, as I stated previously. And I've now taken this thread too far afield, so I will shut up now.
  3. My goal is to learn to recognize the wheat.
  4. Thank you. I have already consulted the resource you provided. I was hoping for a qualified recommendation, not a list of every video on the Internet pertaining to parliamentary procedure.
  5. Is there an online resource where one can see parliamentary procedure played out properly? Specifically RONR? Most of the organizations I've belonged to are run atrociously, and our quaint New England town meetings use a different parliamentary authority (Town Meeting Time, if you can believe that title). Using The Book to learn the dehydrated details of deliberation is essential, and this forum provides a lot in the way of theory, but there's no substitute for seeing democracy in action (as opposed to democracy inaction). I'm thinking there must be some YouTube videos (or similar media) that show some real-world examples of how to do this stuff the right way. Anyone know of any they'd like to point out?
  6. Then we agree. There are only a few scenarios under which the chair can declare a meeting adjourned. 1. A motion was made, seconded, and passed to adjourn. That was not done in the OP's scenario. 2. The chair believes bodily harm may come to the attendees if the meeting continues. That was not the case. 3. The chair believes there is no further business, and declares the meeting adjourned by unanimous consent. We must assume (wink, wink) that this is what the chair is doing, since it is the only option that fits. I was taking a circuitous route to show that the only action necessary to overcome the incorrect declaration of adjournment in the OP's scenario is for a single member to object. This is simple, doesn't require any parliamentary acrobatics, and saves face for the chair since it doesn't result in any kind of accusation of misconduct or mistake. Edit: I'm assuming that by "agenda" the original poster meant "order of business" and not an agenda in the parliamentary sense. If there actually is a binding agenda, a point of order might be in order.
  7. Someone correct me if I'm wrong--I don't have RONR with me at the office--but I believe the chair is allowed to declare a meeting adjourned by unanimous consent. If it's obvious there is no further business, the chair doesn't have to wait for, or ask for a motion to adjourn. Of course, if any member objects, this no longer meets the criteria for unanimous consent, and the meeting continues. This would apply indirectly in the OP's case by the simple fact that any member could object to the chair's declaration in order to nullify the improperly called adjournment.
  8. If, as you say, your bylaws have job descriptions for this position, that fully describes what they are allowed to do. RONR pp. 463-464 grants honorary members or officers only the right to speak. Any other rights would come from their being actual members, or provisions in your bylaws. As far as I can tell, RONR is silent about the position of "advisor", so whatever that position may or may not entail is totally up to your organization. Edited for clarity. Added: Note that in order to have any sort of honorary anything, there must be a provision in your bylaws that specifies how one becomes an honorary whatever. Stay tuned for other (likely wiser) interpretations.
  9. BryanSullo

    Voting

    Must be a musical group. This would certainly make votes more interesting! Seriously, though, you should check your by-laws and any special rules of order to make sure you don't have rules that differ from RONR. (My guess is that you don't, but you never know.) Edit: And, yes, I know George's and Garry's signatures say substantially the same thing, but who reads those things? (And I wanted to get in the comment about the "secret ballad".)
  10. It's becoming clearer. To my interpretation, that paragraph states that the board cannot deliberate outside a board meeting, but it doesn't say to me that the board only exists during board meetings. Surely, each board member retains the executive powers that are granted by way of being a board member, whether in a board meeting or not. This does bring up another question though: If a board chairman presents a report at a general assembly, and a member asks for clarification of a particular point, or asks a question about a subject not covered, under what authority can the reporting member answer the question, since the board does not have a chance to convene and deliberate about it?
  11. Is this principle--that the board does not exist/operate-as-a-board outside of board meetings--spelled out somewhere in RONR? I'd love to be able to quote chapter and verse.
×
×
  • Create New...