Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

J. J.

Members
  • Content Count

    4,006
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About J. J.

  • Birthday 01/01/1963

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

2,551 profile views
  1. Was there a set of bylaws already in effect? If so, what does it say about amending the bylaws?
  2. I will step back a little bit, and say this will be a bylaw interpretation. If I were a member, I would support the interpretation that Rule #6 in the section on bylaw interpretation permits the non-voting member to retain all the rights of membership, except the right to vote. If I were chairing the meeting, I would rule that way, subject to appeal. It would be preferable if the bylaws said that in so many words. I would note, however, that the rules could be suspended to permit nonmembers to speak in debate and make motions. I would also note that, even without a suspension of t
  3. The society, by adopting the bylaw, has said, "We approve of the action taken, and will not question the action's validity." I'm sure that if the president hired her spouse, in violation of a rule, the assembly could repeal the rule and say that it will not countenance any challenge to that action taken in violation of this rule. I see no legitimate grounds for raising a point of order that a rule that is no longer in effect was broken and that actions authorized by a bylaw amendment were somehow illegitimate.
  4. Note that minutes where notice was given should include the notice. It may not technically be required to list the name of the person making giving notice, it certainly could be added.
  5. What ground would there be for finding that business, now authorized by a properly adopted bylaw amendment, out of order?
  6. Yes, because it makes the action proper. The bylaws authorize some action, even one that happened before. Once done, you cannot raise a point of order claiming that something currently authorized by the bylaws is void. That action, in this case what was done at the September meeting, is specifically authorized in the bylaws.
  7. If you are asking about the last part, that would involve a situation such as improper notice when the bylaw was adopted.
  8. You will have to wait for a future NP. The September regular meeting met via Zoom. The bylaws do not permit electronic meetings. At the November in person meeting, with proper notice, amends it bylaws authorizing electronic meetings and authorizing all action taken at that meeting. At the December meeting, you raise a point of order that some business in the September meeting is void, because the method of the meeting was not authorized in the bylaws. Yes it is, just not at the September meeting. Is there a current breach? No, there is no existing breach. There was
  9. By amending you bylaws as shown, would be judged by the current bylaws, unless the situation is that the bylaw itself was improperly adopted is such a way to be null and void.
  10. The members/former members names that made (and seconded) the main motion would go in the minutes of the meeting where the motion was made. While the names of the members/former members is not necessary for Lay on the Table, they would be placed in the minutes, it would be in of the meeting where the motion was made. While the names of the members is not necessary needed for Take From the Table, they would be placed in the minutes, it would be in of the meeting where the motion was made.
  11. In dealing with adjourned meetings, you might want to take a look here: https://www.academia.edu/42254288/RONR_versus_Blizzards And here: https://www.academia.edu/42254625/Flexibility_of_Adjourned_Meetings I do agree that the best policy is to have the meeting, but adjourn the meeting almost immediately. You could establish an adjourned meeting using the motion Fix Time To Adjourn.
  12. You could rescind the the motion to create the committee. I would treat this rescinding a special rule of order and require a 2/3 vote with notice or a majority of the entire membership of the board (50:8). I will assume that the committee was appointed by the board.
  13. Assuming that it is in order to take the question from the table, the minutes would read, "The motion [insert text] was taken from the table." You could even add "that was placed on the table at the [date] meeting," after inserting the text, but I do not feel that it is necessary.
  14. The assembly could amend the bylaws. It could, for instance, adopt a bylaw amendment that said "Member John Smith is not permitted speak, make motions, or vote and the meeting held on [date of meeting]." I would question if the rules could be suspending the rules to permit the same thing. That standard would be that rules protecting absentees, the basic right of an individual, rules embodying fundamental principles of parliamentary law, could be suspended if the motion suspend the rules is adopted the vote for it is sufficient to amend the bylaws. While the a bylaw amendment could do
×
×
  • Create New...