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

2,830 profile views
  1. Since there appears to be no adopted authority, your organization may have established one by custom. When there is a parliamentary question, is there a set of rules your organization looks at to reach a decision?
  2. In small boards, seconding a motion is not necessary. If you are a member of this board, and you really want to second it, you can.
  3. Strictly in terms of RONR, if the town clerk can vote in the case of a tie, the action does not violate RONR.
  4. I would see no reason why a nominee could not sign the document when nominated.
  5. Since this is a governmental body, a roll call vote may be required.
  6. Those would permit, technically, debate on on the amendment. True, an opponent of the amendment could move it, and then immediately move the previous question, thus preventing debate. It someone in favor of the amendment moves it, he would have preference in recognition for debate.
  7. Why could it not then? It does not violate a fundamental principle of parliamentary law. It is not preventing consideration of a measure that is already under consideration.
  8. I don't know that this particular question ever come up before. The question here is "can the assembly prevent an incidental main motion from being considered by a 2/3 vote?" I do not see anything in either your answers here or in 2006-20 that says, "No the assembly cannot do that."
  9. Just to expand a bit further, this could happen with an in person ballot vote, if the time for the polls to be open would be long enough that membership could be established prior to the polls closing. It is much more likely with mail voting, however. For example, the polls are open between 9:00 AM and 10:00 AM. Mary joins the society at 9:15 AM; she hands her dues to the treasurer at that point. She is elected to an office by write-in votes that can only be held by a member. You would have the same situation. While less likely, it could happen.
  10. I am reading the question as removing a motion for which an item for which previous notice was given. Unless some special rule intervenes, under RONR it would not be required to put "giving notice" on the agenda.
  11. This is a different question. 2006-20 said, "It is simply not possible to prevent debate which has already taken place. As a consequence, a motion to suspend the rules which interfere with the late objection would also be out of order. Rules may be suspended, but facts cannot." This, in no way, is a case of preventing "debate which has already taken place." The proposed bylaw amendment, while given noticed, has not been introduced.
  12. I would think that, if an agenda is required, an item that was properly given previous notice could be removed from the agenda. even under RONR. There is a right to notice, by an individual member, but no individual member could compel the assembly to consider an issue at a given meeting.
  13. There may be fixed elections within the council, e.g. the position of mayor is elected by council for a term of two years.
  • Create New...