Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

J. J.

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About J. J.

  • Birthday 01/01/1963

Profile Information

  • Location:
  • Interests
    Procedure, History, Politics, Genealogy, a Missing Person Case in Central Pennsylvania, and, of course, Donna Summer.

Recent Profile Visitors

2,155 profile views
  1. I think notice has to fairly warn the members and adding a section may not require a location. However, there is a difference between what is required and what is preferable.
  2. The motion doing so would have to be recorded in the current minutes.
  3. I agree, but notice such a proposed amendment would not have to specifically state that it was an amendment to the bylaws.
  4. I am general agreement, though there could be some circumstances where the proposal would be clearly an amendment to the bylaws. A proposal to permit proxy voting could only be an amendment to the bylaws, for example.
  5. I certainly disagree with the idea the members have a right to know the vote totals, or any other violation of p. 251. I conclude that the motion to suspend that rule was in order. I am agreement that it is extremely bad idea to suspend the rules for this purpose.
  6. I will add my agreement. There now must be clear and convincing evidence.
  7. Isn't that true even if there is no change in membership? The rules, at the future meeting, could be suspended to prohibit the consideration of the postponed items. Likewise, if the question has been tabled at the prior meeting, the assembly may not take it from the table at the current meeting. Like some others, I'm not taking a position on the rule.
  8. No. It is implied on p. 87, ll. 14-19 that a committee can be used as method for considering a motion beyond thee next session.
  9. It is implied that a committee can be used as a vehicle for considering a motion beyond the next session on p. 87, ll. 14-19.
  10. Ultimately, that the reason the rule cannot be suspended is due to absentee rights. By suspending the rules, improperly, so that the future session must consider these items, the current session attempts to place that choice beyond the control of the next session (p. 87, ll. ll. 6-11). Placing something beyond the control of a future session, without using a bylaw or special rule, violates the rights of absentees, because either method requires some measure to protect absentee rights. It would require either previous notice or a majority of the entire membership, both of which serve as a protection of absentee rights. There is an identifiable reason why the rules could not be suspended beyond the current session.
  11. The language in the 4th edition says, "In an assembly a plurality never elects except by virtue of a rule to that effect (p. 24, Introductions (definitions))." That does not say anything about a requiring the bylaws to specify a plurality vote for election of officers; it is clear that special rule could be adopted to permit the election of officer by plurality under the 4th edition. I think that did not occur until the 7th edition. I have no idea why this change was made.
  12. The book doesn't say that none is needed. I maintain that the assembly could only permit business would carry over to the next session by adopting a special rule. It could only adopt such a special rule, without notice, by a majority of the entire membership. Anything else is a violation of absentee rights, as expressed on p. 251, e. While I will agree that wording it as a motion to suspend the rules is improper, I would not agree the mere wording is sufficient to create a breach of a continuing nature.
  13. The General was fine with saying a special rule permit the election of officers by a plurality. The statement that electing officers by plurality was required to be in the bylaws first appeared in the 7th edition of RONR, which was published in 1970.
  14. I left a "not' out. Sorry.
  15. It would need to be suspended; the majority can reopen nominations by a majority vote. See pp. 288-9.
  • Create New...