Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Rob Elsman

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    5,303

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Rob Elsman

  1. Rob Elsman
    I am still not seeing facts that would lead me to conclude that the rules require another vote.
  2. Rob Elsman
    Well, aside from all the confusion, there are limits within which an election can be contested, and it might well be that the time has expired, regardless of the irregularities that are alleged. RONR has a whole lot to say about elections. Oddly enough, people seem to want to know about elections only afterward. It would be better for all involved to get hold of copies of RONR and do your training before an election, so all the contention after the election can be avoided.
  3. Rob Elsman
    Insofar as I have some precious few facts, I see insufficient reason to have another vote. However, my experience on this forum has taught me that just a little, tiny change in the facts can have really big effects on the appropriate answer. Is there anything more to this?
  4. Rob Elsman
    Well, then, they're your bylaws, you tell us.
  5. Rob Elsman
    Per se, there is nothing invalidating about the fact that the number of ballots returned is less than the number of ballots issued. It is not improper for a member to tear up his ballot, stick it in his pocket, and walk out.
  6. Rob Elsman
    If it is practical to do so, the Nominating Committee should meet and propose to the electing body another candidate. If it is not practical for the Nominating Committee to meet again, the election can proceed without it having met and proposed another candidate.
  7. Rob Elsman
    I must confess that I am still confused by the original poster's use of the word "tabled". I'm sure this is because I am a dotty, old man. But, for some reason that troubles me, I keep thinking he is using the term in the sense that is common in the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth—where "tabled" roughly means "put before the assembly". In other words, after all the comments, I still wonder whether the question is pending or not.
  8. Rob Elsman
    I agree with Mr. Martin. I would also like to stress that the custom should in no way be understood to preclude a person who is disabled from serving as presiding officer on account of his inability to stand.
  9. Rob Elsman
    A motion to Suspend the Rules is not used to limit or extend the limits of debate. For this specific purpose, there is a subsidiary motion called Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate. Because this motion has the effect of suspending the rules governing the number or length of speeches in debate, it requires a two-thirds vote for adoption. One way to "undo" what was put into effect by such a motion is to reject the motion upon reconsideration.
  10. Rob Elsman
    It may also be that the poster had in mind some disposition of the motion after the "discussion" had been completed. Since we have so little information about the actual intent, it is impossible to know what, if any, motion was the proper one to make. Alternatively, the intent may have been to shut off further "discussion". Without more information from the poster, it is hard to provide a definitive answer.
  11. Rob Elsman
    This example once again demonstrates why rules should not be written in the passive voice. As so often happens, this rule has no agent, so it seems impossible to know for sure what body it is that holds special meetings.
  12. Rob Elsman
    Yes, indeed. And to be clear, Oksana can graciously receive being addressed as Madam Chairman, in an organization that insists on it, without any sense of disrespect or slight.
  13. Rob Elsman
    I'm speaking of the mechanics of modern language, not my personal opinion of them. For some reason, this seems to be a "hot button" issue, when it really does not have to be. The original poster wonders about the propriety of "chairman" to reference a female presiding officer; but it would likely never occur to her to call her female physician Doctrix Alice.
  14. Rob Elsman
    The English language has adapted rather well to modern changes in gender roles. We now have female policemen, firemen, doctors (not "doctrices"), administrators (not "administrices"), and so forth. The universe of parliamentary procedure seems to be adapting, too.
  15. Rob Elsman
    I think most of your question requires the assistance of an attorney who is familiar with the governing statutes, which may, in effect, preclude the use of the secret ballot method of voting. You need help on this that is not available on this forum.
  16. Rob Elsman
    In addition to agreeing with Mr. Kapur's opinion on points 1 and 2, I also agree with point 3. Although there may, indeed, be some transitional confusion over the change in terms, in the long run, consistency in terminology will actually make things easier.
  17. Rob Elsman
    The demand for a separate vote on a rule would not be a division of a motion. What I think we have, here, is actually a series of main motions, one for each rule. It is analogous to a "platform" at a convention, where each "plank" is actually a separate, independent proposition.
  18. Rob Elsman
    Mr. Martin, I think this is an instance where even a single member can demand a separate vote on any particular rule. Each rule is, in effect, an independent proposition.
  19. Rob Elsman
    Nothing in RONR imposes a duty upon any officer to hand over the organization's financial records for removal from the officer's custody.
  20. Rob Elsman
    They're your bylaws. You tell us. Seriously, we can't be in the business of opining on the meaning of organizations' bylaws on this forum. Sorry.
  21. Rob Elsman
    Does anyone have a spare TOLISless parish for Father Cadan?
  22. Rob Elsman
    RONR calls the requirement for rule by consensus a form of "tyranny". Your TOLIS (as in "QVI TOLIS PECCATA MUNDI"?) needs to take this to heart. Otherwise, Father, you're in for some real frustration that will make you go bald.
  23. Rob Elsman
    Consensus is not a method of voting in RONR. Unanimous consent merely means that no member objects, not that every member agrees.
  24. Rob Elsman
    I think I can help you. Transacting business by "consensus" is nothing more than the oppression by one. The rule of a majority is a defining principle for a "deliberative assembly" in RONR.
  25. Rob Elsman
    Actually, Mr. Kapur's reply can be said about any topic brought up on this forum. The authors have covered this matter in the Introduction to the forum, so participants can keep their fingers from getting shorter by not repeating what is already said there.
×
×
  • Create New...