Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

J. J.

Members
  • Posts

    4,376
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by J. J.

  1. There may be another question, one that could see happening. The assembly, for some reason skips over #45 at any point before new business becomes pending. Is it out of order to bring that up under new business on the ground that it is still under the control of the assembly?
  2. In this particular scenario, the breach would end, i.e. heal, of its own accord. However, if the motion were to come up under new business, the breach would also end, would it not?
  3. An act that is null and void could not put the motion under the control of the assembly.
  4. Is it still under the control of the assembly?
  5. An invalidly adopted motion could not present substantially the same question because the disposal of the same question, even temporarily, is null and void.
  6. What would be the case if the chair rules just rules that the motion to postpone motion to postpone Motion 45 was out of order and that Motion 45 was not postponed? The chair makes no ruling as to when Motion 45 can be brought up. Further, if the chair would rule that Motion 45 should come up under unfinished business, would that be subject to appeal, to the effect that Motion 45 should come up immediately?
  7. I will agree that once Motion 45 becomes pending (no matter how) the breach has healed. Could the chair rule, prior to Motion 45 becoming pending, that the motion to postpone Motion 45 is void and that Motion 45 may be made under new business? I am not certain if that is better procedure than having the motion be brought before the assembly immediately, but I would not believe it creates a breach of a continuing nature either.
  8. Okay, why would this be a breach of a continuing nature at the January meeting, but not at the March meeting?
  9. I agree. I will clarify that Main Motion #45 does not require previous notice; it is a plain vanilla main motion. Changing one detail, however, the assembly does not catch the mistake until the March session. However, the point of order is raised at the March session, but prior to the assembly reaching unfinished business, e.g. after the President's report. Does Main Motion #45 come up at that point? (Obviously, if Motion #45 is pending it could be postponed legitimately at that point as it is a pending main motion.)
  10. This is something similar to the thread, but I do not know if either question is answered directly in RONR. The society in my question meets once every two months, but for multiple day sessions. In January, on Day 1 of the session a main motion, Motion #45, is postponed to the March meeting. Unrealized at the time, a number of votes cast by people ineligible to vote are cast, enough to have effected the result. On Day 2 of the January session, a member realizes this, and, with nothing pending, raises a point of order. The chair rules that as the votes of ineligible votes did effect the result, 23:6 and 25:9 were violated, and that the adoption of the motion to postpone Motion #45, is void. Does Motion #45 become pending? If not, what do members at the January session have to do to consider it?
  11. Not quite. First, let's specify the situation. The assembly meets once every other month, though it might have multiple day sessions. At the January 15th meeting a subsidiary motion "to postpone Motion #10 (a main motion) to the April meeting." That would have the effect of tying the assembly's hands for the remainder of the January session and for the March session, i.e. it puts it beyond the control of the majority. While in theory, a main motion may be put beyond the control of the majority for one session, it cannot do it beyond the end of the next session. I would say that a point of order could be raised at any point to rule the subsidiary motion "to postpone Motion #10 (a main motion) to the April meeting" even at the January meeting. I see this as being a violation of the rights of anyone not present at this meeting that might be present at the March meeting, i.e. it is a violation of absentee rights. In that respect, it would not be similar to postpone indefinitely. If the point of order is raised in the same session, when no other business is pending, and Motion #10 would recur. Motion #10 could be raised anew at the March session. Because the motion "to postpone Motion #10 (a main motion) to the April meeting" creates a breach of a continuing nature, it would not tie the hands of the assembly even for a single session. There are some ways that the assembly can put Motion #10 off until the April session, but not by using Postpone.
  12. Since it would be out of order to postpone a main motion beyond the end of the next session, why couldn't the main motion just be renewed at the next session?
  13. Couldn't many incidental main motions be included in that definition.
  14. The chair was wrong. Under RONR there is no right for any non member to speak at any meeting; the rules may be suspended to permit non members to speak in debate(25:9). An organization may establish it own rules permitting non members to speak. Further some public bodies are required by statute to permit non members to comment.
  15. Someone with some connection to the assembly may acquire some very limited situational rights. For example, a non member officer may have certain rights to due process if the society attempts to remove them (47:2; 62:16). Likewise, a non member chair can raise an Objection to the Consideration of the Question (26:3), but not vote on it. It can happen, but it is both rare and quite limited.
  16. RONR gives a very good explanation of what should be in the minutes, with good examples. See Section 48.
  17. Under RONR there is no right for audience members to even be present. They could be removed. If your board is a unit of government, ask your board's solicitor.
  18. Are you talking about writing a resolution with whereas clauses? That is a type of motion. A motion can be as simple as, "I move that we pay the water bill."
  19. A member, in theory, could move to suspend the rules to require a two thirds vote to adopt the motion. The motion to suspend the rules requires a two thirds vote to adopt.
  20. Yes, "The minutes of the August meeting were approved as corrected," is all needed for the September minutes.
  21. It certainly would not if the vote was by ballot or roll call. On a voice vote, a majority could vote against each candidate, so the assembly could not elect anyone until the chair relents. In the circumstance, the assembly could order a method of voting where nominations are not needed. Further, the election of an officer, by majority vote, should heal any breach caused by improper nominations. I am, in looking at your comment, wondering if meant that they were applicable.
×
×
  • Create New...