J. J.
-
Posts
5,648 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by J. J.
-
I agree with both of my colleagues. I would note that running for office is quite different than holding office.
-
You still could have the same thing with precedent. You can also have precedent that might be dissimilar enough to the current parliamentary situation not to be valid, or at of questionable applicability. I think everyone agrees that it is far better to amend the bylaw to make them unambitious. I've said, in reference to the 11th edition, 'RONR sagaciously recommends that, 'The ambiguous or doubtful expression should be amended as soon as practicable.'” Neither a point or order, appeal, or a main motion will permanently clear up the situation. -
I would serve as guidance to the chair on how to rule, much like a precedent would. Keep in mind, however, that a precedent can be overturning in the same way and can create the same "paradox." The question is not "Is this a particularly good way to do it," but could the assembly do it this way. I agree with those who say that that it is a much better method to amend the bylaws to eliminate the ambiguity.
-
I tend to agree, but, in theory, so would precedent established by a point of order. I might call it "situational," "non-binding," or "precedential in nature," but I believe we are on the same page. A motion that the assembly wishes to consider cannot possibly "obstruct or thwart the will of the assembly as clearly indicated in the existing parliamentary situation (31.10)." I would add that the assembly's wishes might change a millisecond later.
-
That is kind of a different question. It gets very close to a paradox. The assembly, by a main motion can, at that point in time, determine what a bylaw means. That would not prevent the assembly, at a future meeting from deciding that the bylaws mean something else. The majority has the ability to determine if a motion is dilatory or not, and may overrule the chair's decision. It may then decide that the ambiguous bylaw mean X without resorting to a point of order. That would not prevent a future meeting from deciding the same ambiguous bylaw now means Y. The enforcement of the rules is always within the control of the majority, and the majority makes the decision about what an ambiguous bylaw means.
-
If this is a small board, seconds are not required. 49:21 Most orders of business have "new business" on them.
-
There are situations where the court, on it's own initiative, chooses to intervene, an example being "King's Bench Jurisdiction." The assembly has a continuous ability to enforce its rules, and therefore must have a continuous ability to determine what those rules are. I would also note that some bylaws obviously are not rules in the nature of a rule of order and do not have applicability within a meeting. I would question how a question how a Point of Order could be raised to interpret bylaws not in the nature of a rule of order.
-
I absolutely agree that it is far better to amend the bylaws. That wasn't the question. 42:3:2a mentions a motion adopted in regard to the subject of an appeal. The assembly could choose to interpret its bylaws by some other method that a Point of Order with a possible appeal. In theory, they could adopt a motion to hire a parliamentarian and let her interpret the bylaws.
-
How was the person removed improperly.
-
I think the assembly could adopt a motion, "That the society interprets Article V, Section 1. to mean that ___________," assuming that the bylaw is ambiguous. It would be an incidental main motion. I would say that, if it is not germane to the conduct or purpose of the meeting, it would be out of order.
-
Rule that are in the nature of a rule of that are included in the bylaws may be suspended. 2:20 It would not make a difference as to the the title, but the function.
-
Objection to consideration of the question and nominations
J. J. replied to Caryn Ann Harlos's topic in General Discussion
A nomination is not an original main motion and therefor not subject to Objection to the Consideration of the Question. 26:1 A nomination is a type of suggestion to fill a blank. 46:1 I would also note that nominations are debatable. 46:27-29 -
Yes, I was referring to your specific quote.
-
I think that, as a matter of general parliamentary law, a majority of the entire membership could always adopt a special rule of order, provided that there no higher level rule governing the situation. I would disagree that introducing the motion previously would constitute previous notice.
-
Does the board have the authority to hire and fire employees?
-
If this is a mail ballot, the only thing that could be done is to have the election as soon as possible. Is this a mail ballot or a vote at a meeting?
-
Yes. The board member is a board member until she resigns or becomes ineligible.
-
Do the bylaws provide for the election of a parliamentarian and make him an officer? Is the parliiamentarian appointed by the chair?
-
10:10 Motions have continuing effect.
-
If the rule said a donation is to be made, no additional motion is needed.
-
As someone who does write a bit, I do not use "gender neutral" terms, though I use examples of both genders and the appropriate pronoun. Some of the things we do goes back to the 15th Century, at least.
-
I would note that motion changing a past practice (custom) is totally legitimate; a motion should never be ruled out of order solely on the ground that it violates a past practice. In this case, there may be other reasons for ruling this particular motion out of order.
-
Yes, however the board member may remain in the meeting until he receives the charges.
-
The accused board member should not participate, but cannot be compelled to abstain (44:12.).
-
electronic meeting Replace Pandemic-Delayed Meeting
J. J. replied to Albert's topic in General Discussion
Ideally, there should have a "meeting" of the membership in April, even if it was just one member that adjourned the meeting because of the lack of a quorum. It is from this that there is a problem.
