Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

David A Foulkes

Members
  • Content Count

    5,602
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by David A Foulkes

  1. Thank you Richard.  My own thinking on that second bylaw is that I don't anticipate being removed, disabled, or dead, so I'm letting those go.  When I am no longer a member, and thus unable to hold the office, I don't see that as an absence either. I hope I'm right on all counts, at least the first three.  As for whether the RONR default vis-a-vis VP automatically ascending the throne on June 1st, particularly in view of the first quoted bylaw above, I'm still unsure.  Perhaps an amendment to that bylaw to exempt the President's office from the cited vacancy filling procedures is in order.

  2. He's baa-aack.  At least for today.  I have a question (okay, two actually) I believe I know the answer(s) to, but want confirmation that I'm on the right track to present to the membership.

    I am President of an organization, and my three-year term expires this March at the Annual Membership meeting on the second Sunday of March. Bylaws cite a three-year term with the language " or until their successors are elected."  Also, in order to hold office, one must be a member for at least a year (I have) with annual dues paid for the current year.  Dues are payable in the month of March.  If unpaid by April 30th, the member is delinquent in his/her dues, and if unpaid by May 31st, the member's membership is automatically terminated.

    If re-elected at the Annual meeting, I will decline to accept the office. I am also not planning to renew my dues this year.  I am highly doubtful any other member will take the position, which will mean there will be an incomplete election at the Annual meeting.  As such, I believe there will not (yet) be a vacancy in the office of President, and I will remain President until the election is completed.

    Relevant bylaws further stipulate:

    "Vacancies for any reason shall be filled by the Board until the next duly called membership meeting, at which time a special election for the remainder of the unexpired term shall be held by the membership. "

    "The Vice-President shall: Perform all duties of the President in the absence, upon the death or removal, or during the disability of that officer; Perform such further duties as the Board of Trustees may require. "

    My questions then are: On June 1st my membership will be automatically terminated for non-payment of dues.  If the election for President has not been completed by then, doesn't that then create a vacancy in the office?  Will the Vice President automatically assume the office of President, creating a vacancy in the Vice President office?

    I believe the answer to the first question is yes.  The second question has me in doubt, though I  believe it is also yes.  I appreciate your insights, and will do my best to provide additional information for which you may ask.

    Happy 2016!

     

  3. Well, what DO your bylaws say about amending? (Not that we'll interpret it here for you, but it might help to know)  And bear in mind a "revision" is just a large-scale version of amending, typically covering many Articles/Sections as opposed to a singular amendment of one small section.  As for what RONR says:

     

    "The bylaws should always prescribe the procedure for their amendment, and such provision should always require at least that advance notice be given in a specified manner, and that the amendment be approved by a two thirds vote. If the bylaws contain no provision for their amendment, they can be amended by a two-thirds vote if previous notice (in the sense defined on page 121) has been given, or they can be amended by the vote of a majority of the entire membership." (RONR 11th Ed, p. 580 ll. 25 - p. 581 l. 7)

    "A requirement of previous notice means that announcement that the motion will be introduced—indicating its exact content as described below—must be included in the call of the meeting (p. 4) at which the motion will be brought up, or, as a permissible alternative, if no more than a quarterly time interval (see pp. 89–90) will have elapsed since the preceding meeting, the announcement must be made at the preceding meeting. The call of a meeting is generally sent to all members a reasonable time in advance, which may be prescribed in the bylaws." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 121, ll 23-32)"


    RONR does not specify what constitutes a "reasonable time in advance.

  4. p. 508 deals with the rare case where the society is to adopt the report in its entirety. In most cases, it is only necessary to adopt the recommendations in the report, in which case the reporting member would normally make the motion.

     

    All true, though I'm not sure what Guest_William is actually asking about.  He writes about "acceptance of" the report, and makes no mention of recommendations, if any.  It may be that the report is purely informational and as such, is not accepted or adopted or approved or anything except placed on file.  Perhaps Guest_William will return to fill in some details.

  5. ANd not just yours (not to slight it either), at least in general; but doesn't p. 21 say we should?

     

    P. 21 could be read that way, but I suspect Weldon's point is that trying to duplicate the rule(s) in RONR can often lead to needless confusion and ambiguity.  If a majority of the entire membership is what the society deems appropriate for its quorum, why not let RONR carry the load?  Otherwise, it often ends up as "50%" or "50% + 1" or some other just slightly erroneous interpretation of "majority" as we've so often read here on the internet's premier parliamentary forum.

  6. It may be best at this point to advise Guest_Laura that RONR does not hold the answer to her question, and likely with good reason.  I'd suspect the concept of "joint meetings" has not escaped the authorship team, and they have (wisely?) not addressed it on purpose.

     

    Whether a third committee, combining the two, should be appointed, or the bylaws amended to address the issue of quorum (and other issues that are not yet considered) at "joint meetings" will be up to the society to decide.

  7. 2. Wouldn't it be easier to just ask the president to call a meeting?

     

    It would seem to be, assuming the president is in favor of holding the meeting.  If not, it is up to the EC to vote to hold the meeting, and therein lies the rub.  As teleconference meetings are not authorized, the EC would have to hold a regular meeting to vote to call the "intermediate meeting", and therefore should likely be able to address the "move to change a motion that was adopted" at the regular meeting, thereby removing the need for the "intermediate meeting".  It's a bugger.

  8. A majority (more than half) of votes cast is required to elect.  Half of 11 is 5 1/2.  Since no candidate received more than 5 1/2 votes, you have an incomplete election and need to vote again (and again and again) until a candidate gets at least 5 1/2 (okay, we'll call it 6 or more) votes.  If at first you don't succeed.........

     

    Why didn't you vote?

  9. When does the President get to vote? 

     

    If the President is a member of the assembly that is meeting (if not, then the short answer is never), s/he always retains the right to vote, although there are some instances when s/he should not vote in order to maintain the appearance of impartiality. 

  10. When can something that was approved be revoted on?

     

    Pretty much any time.

     

    Well, as one example when it's not okay to revote (using proper parliamentary procedures, of course) is if the action of the previously adopted motion is complete.  For example, if the motion was to paint the barn red and it's been painted, you can't exactly vote not to paint it.  You can move (and vote) to repaint it a different color, or put vinyl siding on, or burn it down, but those would be new motions, not "revotes". 

     

    Martin B - a few details would be helpful.  And it would be much better to start a new thread for your question.

  11. When reading the nominees there was confusion as to who was running for first vp and second vp.  The winner of the first VP won by more than 3x's the other votes....

     

    Well, why the confusion wasn't cleared up before voting began is the real question here, and one we can't answer.

     

    Barring a rule to the contrary, members have the right (via write in voting) to vote for whomever they wish, regardless of whether they were nominated for a position.  It seems that, given the chance to elect a 1st VP, they voted for the one they felt best qualified.  It would be fair to assume that even if a revote were taken, Mr. Popular (or perhaps anyone else at all) would still receive more votes than Mr. Sourgrapes.  Perhaps he should ask why that is.

  12. Well, it does state that the numbered VP's move up the line in the event that the 1VP becomes president.  It doesn't say what happens if he does not, because I believe he always does.

     

    I'm one of those who believe that the 1VP instantly becomes president, and can therefore only be excused (allowed to resign) from the office he now holds (president--thereby leaving him without either office).  When this happens, the former 2VP who is the current 1VP becomes the new president.  Vacancies therefore occur in the highest-numbered VP offices.

     

    For argument's sake - the 1st VP resigns, and his resignation is accepted by the assembly.  Nothing in RONR says the chain of VPs moves up, so there is a vacancy in the 1st VP office.  Before that vacancy is filled, the President resigns, and his resignation is also accepted.  Are there two vacancies now, or does the 2nd VP become President?  If so, what rule in RONR supports that?

     

    If the President resigns, the 1st VP automatically becomes President, the 2nd VP automatically becomes 1st VP (filling that vacancy) and so on.  But if there is no vacancy in the 1st VP???

  13. the approval of minutes are subject to a vote.....

    Not according to RONR:

     

    Reading and Approval of Minutes. The chair says, "The Secretary will read the minutes." However, in organizations where copies of the minutes of each previous meeting as prepared by the secretary are sent to all members in advance, the chair announces that this has been done, and the actual reading of them aloud is omitted unless any member then requests that they be read. (RONR 11th ed., p. 354 ll. 9-15)

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    After any proposed corrections have been disposed of, and when there is no response to the chair's inquiry, "Are there any corrections [or "further corrections"] to the minutes?" the chair says, "There being no corrections [or "no further corrections"] to the minutes, the minutes stand [or "are"] approved [or "approved as read," or "approved as corrected"]." The minutes are thus approved without any formal vote, even if a motion for their approval has been made. The only proper way to object to the approval of the secretary's draft of the minutes is to offer a correction to it. It should be noted that a member's absence from the meeting for which minutes are being approved does not prevent the member from participating in their correction or approval. (RONR 11th ed. p. 354 l. 34 - p. 355 l. 11)

  14. All have different areas of responsibility. The challenging Director is attempting to "oust" the other Director. 

     

    If the challenging Director can simply go back to a safe position should he lose, then that would be an unfair advantage in the challenge.

     

    Thoughts?

     

    Are you talking about a scheduled election?

     

    You speak of the challenging Director "ousting" the other Director, as though the other Director's term is not up yet, as if some sort of coup by the challenging Director.  RONR has no rules on this.

     

    If this is a scheduled election due to the other Director's term coming to an end, then I submit that requiring only non-sitting members can "challenge" for the position puts all the sitting Directors at a disadvantage, and that isn't fair either.  Per the rules in RONR, when a scheduled election is at hand, all eligible members are.... well, eligible to be considered for a position, including those already holding positions and without endangering their "sitting" status to do so.

     

    Seems to me a few more details about what is really happening here are still needed.

  15. So the quorum rule could never, ever be changed in any way whatsoever? If a body can determine their own quorum, why couldn't they ever change it?

     

    In answer to your questions, yes of course it can be changed.

     

    The default quorum by RONR is a majority (more than half) of the membership.  To change that higher or lower, the bylaws can be amended to include a different number, percentage, etc.  To change again what the bylaws set as the quorum can only be done by amending the bylaws, not simply by a regular old everyday motion at a meeting, especially one at which a quorum is not present.

     

    To change the quorum, you will need a) a quorum at a meeting, and b ) to follow the amendment procedures as set forth in the bylaws.  If the bylaws include no amendment procedures.......

     

    "The bylaws should always prescribe the procedure for their amendment, and such provision should always require at least that advance notice be given in a specified manner, and that the amendment be approved by a two thirds vote. If the bylaws contain no provision for their amendment, they can be amended by a two-thirds vote if previous notice (in the sense defined on page 121) has been given, or they can be amended by the vote of a majority of the entire membership." (RONR 11th Ed, p. 580 ll. 25 - p. 581 l. 7)

    "A requirement of previous notice means that announcement that the motion will be introduced—indicating its exact content as described below—must be included in the call of the meeting (p. 4) at which the motion will be brought up, or, as a permissible alternative, if no more than a quarterly time interval (see pp. 89–90) will have elapsed since the preceding meeting, the announcement must be made at the preceding meeting. The call of a meeting is generally sent to all members a reasonable time in advance, which may be prescribed in the bylaws." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 121, ll 23-32)

    RONR does not specify what constitutes a "reasonable time in advance."

     

    Note that any change to the bylaws, such as adding a new provision (for example, quorum definition) to the existing bylaws is also an amendment to the bylaws.

  16. What do you mean by 'each person desiring to join'?  For any rights at a meeting, you must be a member.  Non-members have no rights at all.  The assembly could, by a vote, allow to a non-member to enter into debate but a non-member cannot vote.

     

    If I had to guess, I'd say that the reference is to "joining the debate" (perhaps signing up in advance in some way, thus listing name, pro/con side, and summary of remarks).  I don't think it refers to joining the organization.

×
×
  • Create New...