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

1,836 profile views
  1. There is a fairly detail description online (pp. 19-22): https://issuu.com/parliamentarians/docs/nap_np_78-4-www It even had a real world example.
  2. Since the motion is a main motion, it is fully debatable. The mover may explain how it works.
  3. Ah, no. "When a motion proposes to assign a task or refer a matter to a committee when no question is pending, ... (p. 168, ll. 29-33, emphasis added)." You might want to check out this thread:
  4. I would suggest a main motion "that the assembly go into a committee of the whole to consider (the subject)," if you want to have discussion. See p.168, especially the last paragraph. Note that the committee of the whole is not obliged to recommend a motion to the assembly. If it is purely informational, with no discussion, I'd suggest that it might be appropriate to be treated as a report of a special committee.
  5. Ah, is not that the purpose of having a recount, to determine if there is something wrong? I have to come to the conclusion that if has been counted, under the rules, it can, in fact, be recounted, under the rules for recounting votes including those rules on p. 419. The quarterly time interval would apply. That said, I would question if this was a counted vote under the rules. Did the chair say, "A has 10 votes, B has 6 votes, and C has 3 votes. A is elected?" Did the chair say, "A has the most votes. He is elected?"
  6. J. J.

    Point of Order

    One example is when the member parliamentarian has an additional role with the society. For example, the bylaw committee is chaired by the parliamentarian and it would be helpful for him to speak on a bylaw revision that is coming before the assembly.
  7. J. J.

    Point of Order

    The simple fact that the rule has been adopted changes the relationship from the president's standpoint. The president knows that the parliamentarian can raise points of order (and otherwise participate participate as a member). If he is not happy about that, he usually can decide not to appoint a parliamentarian, or to perhaps decide to appoint another individual. That relationship has changed, because the rule has changed it. The member parliamentarian may still advise the chair, but may also exercise his rights as a member, much in the same way that member secretary may exercise his rights as a member.
  8. No, at least in the latter case. It would be possible to have a rule that someone can be punished for not attending meetings. There are no "fundamental rights" in RONR, but there are "fundamental principles of parliamentary law," and "a basic right of an individual member."
  9. I don't think it denies that right, in the general case. A member could still write in someone. They could write in "J. J." Even if J. J. is not eligible, the member has still complied with that rule. The member, even without a write in, would know that his ballot will not be credited unless he has voted for the number required in the rules. This would be similar to the member knowing that if he votes for an ineligible candidate, his ballot will not be credited. In both cases, the member has the right to vote and exercises it in a way that vote will not be credited.
  10. You presume correctly.
  11. I think that was the argument, in part. Broadly, the question is can a rule of order in RONR (except for those rules required by RONR to in the bylaws) be superseded by a special rule? My position is yes, except for those rules required by RONR to in the bylaws.
  12. My initial answer on that thread was based on Q & A 26, National Parliamentarian, 1st Quarter, 2003, pp. 6-7. The thread refers to a second opinion that was published in 2013. There is a fundamental difference between an individual right created by RONR, and an individual right that than only be overridden by a bylaw. For example, a rule limiting the right to vote, except through a disciplinary suspension, must be placed in the bylaws(p. 406, ll. 25-30). The rule limiting (or prohibiting) the right of a member to demand a ballot in the case of disciplinary action, could be adopted as a special rule. RONR has no language mandating that only way to remove the secret ballot on request rule, as expressed on p. 668, ll.1-3, is to put that in the bylaws; at no point does RONR say that only a bylaw can remove this rule. Likewise, while a member has a "right to abstain (p. 407, ll. 12-19)" nothing says that the right cannot be abridged "except as the bylaws may otherwise provide."
  13. As one parliamentarian wrote, "...while the wisdom of the voter in making that choice may be questioned, the right of the voter to make that choice cannot."
  14. J. J.

    Meeting Notice

    My question would be what would constitute a proper notice. At the properly held, and properly noticed, January 2019 meeting, the Board sets its meeting as being on the second Tuesday of the month at 7:30 PM at the clubhouse. On January 20, 2019, the secretary sends out the meeting notice as such: "The February 2019 regular meeting shall be held at 7:30 PM on Tuesday 2/12/19 at the clubhouse. The March 2019 regular meeting shall be held at 7:30 PM on Tuesday 3/12/19 at the clubhouse. The April 2019 regular meeting shall be held at 7:30 PM on Tuesday 4/9/19 at the clubhouse. The May 2019 regular meeting shall be held at 7:30 PM on Tuesday 5/14/19 at the clubhouse." This pattern continues until the final entry, "The December 2019 regular meeting shall be held at 7:30 PM on Tuesday 12/10/19 at the clubhouse." I would question if this would be an invalid notice, even of the meetings after the February regular meeting. Notice of each regular meeting has been sent in advance "in writing with at least five (5) business days notice." Separate notice has not been sent out, but I do not see a requirement that the notice must be separate, merely that it be sent no later than a specific number of days. If anyone says that this method of sending notice is inadvisable, I will agree. My question is does this method would actually cause the notice of the March through December meetings to to be invalid. [I will note that some organizations do put a maximum the when the notice can be sent in their bylaws, e.g. , "Notice of all meetings of the Executive Committee shall be given in writing with at least five (5), but not more than thirty (30), business days notice." At times, I have question why such a maximum rule is necessary, but can now see its practical purpose.]
  15. J. J.

    Mail Ballot Not Following RONR Procedure

    A while back, I remember a discussion about this. A mail ballot is not necessary a secret ballot. The term ballot, when unqualified, is a secret ballot. The term "ballot" when qualified, may not be a secret ballot, e.g. a sign ballot is clearly not a secret ballot. I would take it that a vote on the amendment at the meeting need not be by secret ballot. If a ballot is not required to be used at the meeting, i.e., the votes cast by members at the meeting are not secret. If so, there would not be a right for all members to secrecy in voting. It would be possible for the rules to provide that there be secrecy is casting of votes by mail, but not with voting in person, but such a rule is unlikely, and in my opinion, would need to be clearly stated. I am in agreement with the conclusion of Messers Merritt, Katz and Lages. I do disagree with Guest Who's Coming to Dinner's suggestion that RONR contemplates nothing "other than a secret ballot when using the term 'ballot,'" especially in light of p. 420, ll. 22-25. I think that Guest Zev does show that, at least in earlier editions, a ballot by mail is not necessary a secret ballot. .