Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Nathan Zook

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Location:
    Everett, WA
  • Interests
    Programming, Politics, and Playing Fair.

Recent Profile Visitors

276 profile views
  1. What about 10:8, item 7b? A motion to prevent the introduction of motions sounds to me like it "would have the effect of suspending ... a parliamentary right of members".
  2. And what majority would be required to adopt such a motion?
  3. RCW 29A.80.020 references the state central committee. This is a meeting of a county central committee.
  4. There are no notice requirements of any kind in the relevant statutes. (This is the central committee of a political party. Let's not get into the constitutional implications. :D)
  5. The term "organizational meeting" comes from the statute creating the committee, and requires the election of a chairman, vice chairman, state committeeman and state committeewoman. (https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=29A.80) It is also at this meeting that the committee members themselves take office. If this is a special meeting, then on what authority do the officers of the retiring committee have the right to limit the actions of the new committee? If one supposes that the statute sets the permitted acts of the body, then there is a huge problem because neither the offices of s
  6. The organizational meeting of our central committee is coming up. As is the custom, the notice includes an agenda, and at the bottom, in bold, is the phrase, "No other items shall be in order." Let's just say that I am not a fan of this custom. Of course, RONR specifies that the agenda has to be adopted by the body in order to become effective. My question involves the vote required to adopt such an agenda. What is the vote required to adopt an agenda which prevents the introduction of motions not on the agenda? In the gray pages, I see Adopt an agenda or progra
  7. "Nor do I find in the grey section a motion specific to compelling an officer to respond to a question." I don't find a motion specific to painting the clubhouse blue, either. That does not mean that such a motion does not exist, or that it is out of order. Nor do I need a rule of compelling for a motion to compel to be in order. I fully agree that no member may compel another. But the body most certainly can compel members on pain of whatever penalty the body might decide as described by their bylaws and RONR. So if a member requests (through the chair) some information, and
  8. Then one either responds "I do not know", or "I am not permitted to say." How the assembly responds to such an answer is the business of the assembly.
  9. I have read the sections referenced in the index under Officers, Reports. No where do I find that the Treasurer has the right to refuse an order by the assembly to answer a question non-evasively. Nor do I find in the grey section a motion specific to compelling an officer to respond to a question. I therefore am of the view that the officers are subordinate to the assembly, and that if they refuse a order by the assembly, such as to answer a question completely, truthfully, and non-evasively, that they would be subject to discipline by the body. Based on this view, I reasoned further
  10. If I may be so bold, the problem is that there are meetings being scheduled which deliberately conflict with the jobs of the members. This violates the fundamental rights of those members to attend the meetings, which is what set off my alarm bells. My suggestion would be to have the members of the Senate elected and take office in such a fashion that they are able to communicate their inability to teach classes which conflict with the time of the meetings to their departments. I would reserve a meeting time in the morning MWF, so that if a special meeting were needed, an available slo
  11. There appears to be some confusion on the part of OP regarding what exactly is/can be/should be Ratified. As stated, an improperly called meeting is no meeting at all, and nothing done by the people in such a setting has any relationship to the society. However, there may have been actions taken by officers or other members of the society inspired by what occurred, and it is these actions which require ratification because no member has a right to act due to what occurred at the gathering. It is for this reason that Ratification is required. If something like a motion had been adopted
  12. I did say I was confused... But it appears that I was also misunderstood. The point of my example was to explain why it is nonsensical to Reconsider a motion once it has been partially executed--because it can have the nonsensical effect of "deauthorization" of a previously authorized act.
  13. Given that the Treasurer is presumably elected by the body that they are reporting to, I wonder on what basis does the Treasurer have the right to refuse questions? If, as suggested above, the chairman requires that the floor be obtained for a member to ask questions, then the chair is clearly enabled to rule a particular question out of order, with the usual Appeal process available. This might be of their own accord or in response to a Point of Order, perhaps made informally, by the Treasurer or any other member of the assembly. Likewise, the chair might suggest that an individual mee
  • Create New...