Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

J. J.

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    5,658

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by J. J.

  1. J. J.
    1. A PDF of the text is attached. 2. Copies may be order through the National Association of Parliamentarians at not cost, IIRC. 3. This was reprinted in Best of NP (2000-07), which is also available from NAP, at a cost. 4. The published text mentions our good friend Gary c. Tesser, as the inspiration. NP 14 RW1.pdf
  2. J. J.
    1. Try pp. 226-7. You may also see "Question of Privilege: Reopening the Windows," National Parliamentarian, third quarter, 2002. Though tied to the tenth edition, it addresses your question.
  3. J. J.
    If I understand correctly, there was one nominee for a partial term.
  4. J. J.
    Well, you could not bring up the smoking motion, so debate might be curtailed. The smokers may have failed to have given notice, and a majority of the entire membership may not be there. The rule could be drafted to make "smoking questions" subject to Objection to the Consideration of the Question, so it would likely be made and rapidly dismissed.
  5. J. J.
    First, it should be "to." I am saying that, if there is only one nominee, X, and write-in votes are not permitted (and not credited), if X gets one vote, X is elected.
  6. J. J.
    Was this election conducted by ballot or roll call? Is the "leadership position" an officer position as defined in the bylaws?
  7. J. J.
    And to you too, good doctor.
  8. J. J.
    It seemed like the optimal solution.
  9. J. J.
    I may not be understanding this correctly, but what would prevent the church from balloting on the partial term first? There could be a ballot tio vote for X, and if write-ins are not credited, X should be elected.
  10. J. J.
    The Treasurer in commission?
  11. J. J.
    Agreed, but perhaps the assembly should have adjourned at that point.
  12. J. J.
    I agree with Hieu's answer. There are two instances were something within the bylaws can be suspended. 1. When the rule provides for its own suspension. 2. When the rule is in the nature of a rule of order.
  13. J. J.
    We also don't know if the time set for adjournment (that might have been reached).
  14. J. J.
    I don't think that could happen. A motion, "To go into executive section to vote on a motion to fire Mr. X," would reveal what will be considered in executive session. Also, I would advise the SDMiller to seek an attorney's, licensed in his state, to review the legality of voting in executive session.
  15. J. J.
    I have to disagree with harper. I think this is something understood by even someone with a "lay knowledge" of both procedure and of the law. About 25 years ago, such a person actually wrote an article on the subject. The individual, at the time, had no certification as a parliamentarian, was not a member of any bar anyplace on the planet, nor had he ever attended law school.
  16. J. J.
    I think that only numbers 5, 6, and 7 are fundamental principles of parliamentary law. That does not mean that some of those others can be suspended. One person noted, "Basically, a fundamental principle of parliamentary is whatever the author or authors of a particular parliamentary authority identify as one."
  17. J. J.
    No, but they could and could cite the same acts he was to be censured for.
  18. J. J.
    Student government in college in 1981. I started with the 1893 edition and quickly graduated to the 1915 edition.
  19. J. J.
    This was my point in post #41. I can move to reopen nominations so that some other member may make a nomination. There is no way for me to know that any other member wants to nominate, nor for the majority to know if there is someone who wants to make an additional nomination. The only time that I could regard this as being even close to improper is if all persons that could be nominated have already been nominated (unlikely, but not impossible).
  20. J. J.
    Why, if the balloting is conducted within a meeting? Can't the polls be reopened?
  21. J. J.
    And I am not exactly sure that is a wrong assumption. I would take it that it would not dilatory for me to move to reopen nominations to provide another member a chance to make a nomination. There would be no need for me even to have an intent to nominate someone else, correct? I could just think someone else may wish to make an additional nomination, couldn't I?
  22. J. J.
    Dan, I agree with you that nominations can be reopened by majority vote, and would open all nominations up for debate. I also agree that there is no motion to reopen debate. The question that have been raised is if the motion nay be made even though no member wishes to offer a nomination. Your answer is apparently, yes.
  23. J. J.
    I think the scenario being given is that no member wishes to make an additional nomination. The majority may wish to continue debating the merits of the existing nominees. I would agree that the only way to do this is to supend the rules. [i could construct a scenario where everyone eligible for the position has been nominated and it would be dilatory to reopen nominations.]
  24. J. J.
    I think I agree with this. After the results of the first round of voting is announced, without an election, the chair should open the polls, or the assembly should otherwise dispose of that motion to fill the blank in the motion "that ___ be elected." In the case of suggestion to fill a blank in a main motion, wouldn't it work the same way, in regard to debate?
  25. J. J.
    It may be proper, if the member's time had expired or if what he was doing violated decorum.
×
×
  • Create New...