Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Nathan Zook

Members
  • Posts

    230
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Nathan Zook

  1. Bylaws provisions: The Executive Board shall: A. Manage the affairs of the Central Committee; B. Exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Central Committee between meetings of the Central Committee, except as expressly exempted by these Bylaws; ... The Central Committee Chairman shall: A. Be the Chief Executive Officer of the Central Committee and shall preside at all meetings of the Executive Board and Central Committee; ... A dispute arose between the bulk of the executive board and the chairman. There was then a motion to suspend the rules and declare the chair vacant. Is such a motion in order? Certainly, it would be in order for the assembly to do so, but can a committee (in general)? If a committee generally cannot, do the empowering provisions above suffice to allow the executive board to do so?
  2. Our bylaws state that the chairman shall appoint the secretary & treasurer. Do such appointments require notification of the body? My instinct was yes, but the closest reference I can find is RONR 13:15, which states that committee appointments by the chair must be announced. Ugly details: Chair informed the secretary that they were being replaced immediately before a meeting, but no mention of this change was made to the body. We now have two sets of minutes, with a substantial difference, and a committee has been appointed to recommend what to do... (Yea me!) Mechanically, the committee can recommend a substitute, but politically, I want to be able to blame you all for the starting point...
  3. 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".
  4. And what majority would be required to adopt such a motion?
  5. RCW 29A.80.020 references the state central committee. This is a meeting of a county central committee.
  6. 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)
  7. 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 secretary nor treasurer are mentioned in the statutes regarding the organizational meeting.
  8. 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 program as generally requiring a majority vote. However, there is a reference to section 10, Main Motion. Under the SDC (10:8), item 7b "when the adoption of the motion would have the effect of suspending ... a parliamentary right of members, in which case it requires a two-thirds vote ..." Since such an agenda would suspend the right of members to make motions, I believe that a two-thirds vote is required. I expect to be opposed in this at the meeting. I would appreciate your views.
  9. "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 the chair permits it, if the officer refuses, that the requesting member might immediately respond with a motion to compel an answer. If the motion passes, and the officer still refuses, then this becomes an offense committed at a meeting, and the standard disciplinary process can be followed. If the chair does not permit the question, the requesting member can Appeal. I fully agree that the chair needs to maintain proper order, and keeping questions from devolving into debate is certainly a common part of this duty. But I believe that you are question-begging. Under RONR, limiting discussion to put motions is a primary tool in this regard, but the report of officers is a period during which there is no motion, but discussion (in the form of questions of the officer about the report) is desirable. The point of our discussion is to suss out the lines of managing this discussion-sans-motion situation. As another has mentioned, there could be ten different people lined up to ask ten different questions of the reporting officer. Surely the chair lacks the authority to deny any of these members the right to even attempt to ask a question. But surely also, the body cannot be compelled to suspend all other business until these members are all satisfied. So what is to be done? My view is that we may best proceed as if an implicit motion to be satisfied with the report of the officer were before the body. Similar to accepting of the minutes, this implicit motion "passes" when discussion stops. Similar to a main motion, the question may be called to stop the discussion. Uniquely, the motion auto-tables when some motion relating to the report is made, and is automatically taken from the table when such a motion is finally disposed of.
  10. 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.
  11. 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 that a motion to compel an answer to a question would pass by majority vote. Furthermore, as we well know that questions and answers are often debate by another name, it seems reasonable to treat a protracted series of questions as if it were debate. As mentioned by others, if we do, we are in a situation of debate without a pending motion, or without an explicit motion. In this case, it appears to me that the assembly is more-or-less debating an implicit motion to be satisfied with the report of the Treasurer. Given that main motions arising out the report of an officer are in order at the time of the officer's report, I don't really understand your position. Yes, a Request for Information is the proper form to initiate a question or series of questions on the report. However, you seem to be suggesting that a motion to compel a complete, truthful, and non-evasive answer to a question would not be in order. Am I correct? If so, on what basis? Certainly, if the bylaws specific that a certain amount of time is set aside for the report of the Treasurer, or that some late order of business occur at a set time, I would agree. But I do not see this as part of the matter we have discussed up until now.
  12. 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 slot would appear either on the fourth academic day after the call of the special meeting or on the next day. In other words, if professors need to communicate their availability to teach spring semester by November first, have elections in October, effective at the start of the spring semester.
  13. 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 by the gathering, that thing has no relationship to the society. Formally, it simply did not occur. Members wishing to bind the society according to such a thing would need to bring a motion under New Business at some properly called meeting to do so. If there are notice requirements for such a motion, such notice must go through the channels specified in the bylaws. Such a motion must be whole self contained. If it included language such as "according to the motion adopted", it becomes nonsensical, as there was no meeting and therefore no adoption of anything. Even if every member of a society were present at an improperly called meeting, it is still not a properly called meeting. I believe however, that, unless the bylaws prevent, verbal notice could be given at the gathering for some motion to be brought at a regular meeting.
  14. 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.
  15. 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 meet privately with the Treasurer, should it appear that the member's questions are not supported by the rest of the body, even going so far as to cut off the questions of that member if the member exceeds the time allotted for individuals to debate debatable questions. And I would likewise view a motion to Proceed with the Next Item of Business to be a form of cutting off debate--it is certainly cutting off discussion. Not that a report of an officer creates a situation where debate, in the sense of RONR is allowed, just that the logic for limiting discussions seems to me to be the same.
  16. I am a bit confused here. The motion to Reconsider has the highest precedence, and it suspends the effect of its object until resolved. Because of this, it has a very limited time frame (same day or next day of the same session), and cannot be made in reference to motions partially carried out. The motions to Rescind and Amend Something Previously Adopted have neither of these limitations. So an adopted motion to place flowers at a memorial every year might be Reconsidered at that same meeting, or the next day of the same session, but no later. Five years down the road, however, the motion may be Rescinded or Amended. Reconsideration at that point (if permitted) would have the effect of deauthorizing the actions taken during the intervening years after the fact. What am I missing?
  17. Absolutely! Which is not to suggest that I will in any way impede the same, mind you. I am a veteran, after all.
  18. The offline fun & games don't scale & generally require the artist to be present in the jurisdiction in question, however.
  19. First, in order to be effective, the president's resignation has to be accepted. Technically, they remain president. Which can be unfortunate, but it is necessary. If the bylaws provide for the vice-president to chair "in the absence of the chairman", or some such, then that person becomes chairman of the meeting, the president having absented themselves from the chair. If not, any member may assume the chair, and then call for the election of a chairman pro tem to chair the remainder of the meeting. If there were any other business pending, it is then resumed, although members might prefer to lay upon the table such business in order to discuss the president's tendered resignation immediately. As you have experienced, referring the matter to the executive committee, while certainly proper, may be problematic if only the president has the explicit authority to call a meeting of the executive committee. Please examine your bylaws and the rules of the executive committee to see if there is any other provision for the executive committee to meet. If not, the executive committee is subordinate to the assembly. Therefore, the assembly can order it to meet at a certain time and place, or perhaps "at the call of the vice-president until we have a president". The above assumes that there is some provision for a regular or special meeting to be called by someone other than the president. Proper handling of the situation otherwise is beyond my expertise. As for the validity of business conducted after the verbal resignation, I would say that, since the resignation has not been accepted, then your president remains president, and that any business conducted after the verbal resignation is valid. Finally, it is extremely common practice for motions to Adjourn to be handled informally. This is bad practice, but valid if no point of order is raised against it at the time.
  20. I don't know about you, but I'm a firm believer in republics. Democracies tend to be as violent as they are shortlived.
  21. Keep in mind that the parliamentary authority, such as RONR, is the lowest-ranking authority governing the body's behavior. I am assuming that by "the governance", you are describing your bylaws, charter, or governmental rule rather than custom. Your bylaws specify the procedure for election, which occurs entirely outside the AMB. The results do need to be announced, and this is what you do. -- As an aside, I am stridently opposed to online elections and votes. There is no end to the mischief which can occur to subvert the vote. But if your organization as adopted such a rule, that is the rule.
  22. My position is that the requirement that a proposed bylaw amendment be submitted and read at one meeting regular meeting and only be acted on at another is a rule protecting the body from ill-considered actions by itself.
×
×
  • Create New...