Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

J. J.

Members
  • Content Count

    4,321
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About J. J.

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

2,996 profile views
  1. Agreeing, I will add that even a meeting held in the unusual circumstances being described will generate minutes.
  2. Yes, National Parliamentarian, Fourth Quarter, 1998. It not some idiosyncratic rule in RONR either. It represents a principle well established in the general parliamentary law. (1998, good Lord, I am that old.)
  3. Unless you have some rule that says you cannot elect a pastor once rejected, yes you can. It should be treated as a new motion (and might need previous notice). If the requirement for the election is changed to a majority, then the vote needed would be a majority. Setting a vote requirement, including setting it to 85% in the first place, would be a special rule of order. It would take a 2/3 vote with notice or a majority of the entire membership to change that rule (2:22).
  4. It could be smaller, if the rule was a bylaw amendment (or possibly a special rule of order). I would question the advisability of handling it as a bylaw amendment or special rule.
  5. First, that you @Richard Brown for calling this to my attention. You could not do so in the same motion, as the items are not related. There may be a way to do this in a bylaw, but I don't know what purpose it would serve, other than to start John Doe's salary a few weeks early.
  6. Which may or may not be the case. We don't know if the congregation has the authority to instruct or not. In some churches, the deacons (or the pastor) have exclusive control over the use of the property.
  7. I hope that I have not given the impression that RONR grants all the basic rights of an individual member to a nonmember, with or without an association with the assembly. RONR does grant some rights (or abilities) to nonmembers of the society that has an association with the assembly, in some cases. They are quite limited, but they do exist.
  8. If the chair is a member, there is no delegation of the right to raise Objection to the Consideration of the Question; he could raise it based on being a member. The nonmember chair just picks up the ability to raise it (but not vote on it). It is not a delegation; the nonmember chair simply has the option of doing that. That is my basis for the example. Another example would be suspending the rules for a session to permit a nonmember to speak in debate, or even make motions. There is no delegation of authority in those acts. The nonmember has an association with the assembly that
  9. If this clause appeared in the bylaws, it would certainly authorize special meetings. I would, however, suggest that, as this is statute, you contact an attorney, preferably one licensed to practice in the state of incorporation.
  10. Sometimes, it has to be more than a yes or no answer. Sometimes, it is more important to know how the rule works, than what the answer is.
  11. Since the election has not been completed, why would this not still be considered a special order at the next meeting, unless somehow the election was created a regular order. This would be in the case of the society is meeting at least quarterly. This might be be where we differ. If an election required by the bylaws did not take place, and there was no other arrangement made, I view the election remain a special order for the next meeting. Even if the election was Postponed Indefinitely, I see the election as special order created by the bylaws. In meetings held at least as quarter
  12. However, if Postpone Indefinitely can be ruled out of order on the sole ground that it will prevent the election from happening in that session, why wouldn't Adjourn be out of order for the same reason? In the circumstance, there are several motions that have the effect of suppressing the election during that session, if legitimately used. Adjourning immediately, postponing the motion for future time that day and then adjourning. Presumably, the election could be sent to a committee instructed to report back at the next meeting. All of those things would suppress the election for that sess
  13. For that session. In that respect, it is identical to postponing the election when pending and adjourning before reaching the election, which is in order. If we were talking about an assembly that did meet at least quarterly, it would have exactly the same effect as postponing the matter. The society cannot, as a practical matter, and possibly as a matter of right, cannot be compelled to elect someone.
  14. Postpone Indefinitely does not, however, kill the question overall. If adopted, "The effect of postponing a question indefinitely is to suppress it throughout the current session (11:3)." Postponing the election to the next meeting, if held within the quarterly time interval, will have exactly the same effect. Adopting a motion to adjourn will have exactly the same effect on the election. Adopting a motion to postpone consideration of the election until 4:00 PM and adjourning at 3:00 PM will have exactly the same effect. Likewise, applying a motion to postpone indefinitely to the motion
×
×
  • Create New...