Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

David A Foulkes

Members
  • Posts

    5,602
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by David A Foulkes

  1. So the question then I suppose is whether nominations remain as "pending questions" to be debated between rounds of balloting. Hadn't really thought of it that way, but obviously each nominee remains nominated until the election is complete, so it would seem so. That being the case, while it might be best to re-open nominations as a matter of course, whether it's necessary in order to resume debate on the previously nominated candidates doesn't seem an absolute. Hmmmm.....
  2. What is it that would be debated? It would seem to me that during the balloting (i.e votes being cast), debate would be out of order. Also, as a general rule, debate is out of order if no question is pending, so...... ???? After the results are announced and the election determined to be incomplete, it would seem that there would need to be something pending to debate, and the most likely "something" would be additional nominations. Did you have something else in mind, Josh?
  3. Start reading at page 347 line 21 (RONR 11th ed.), with particular attention to the first sentence which states (in so many words) that any business conducted at in inquorate meeting is null and void, with the few procedural exceptions noted later on.
  4. Well, even if this rule did apply, only the maker is prohibited from speaking against his own motion, but anyone else could even speak for it their first time, and against it the second time in debate.
  5. But p. 27 doesn't say this, or am I reading it wrong, or misunderstanding you? Mine says "protects a minority of less than one third"
  6. Generally, none, although some rules found in the bylaws may be in the nature of a rule of order and may be suspended by adopting a motion to Suspend the Rules, or if any specific bylaw allows for its own suspension. The save approach is to assume no rule found in the bylaws may be suspended (or fudged or overlooked) and go from there. My guess would be he does not have that authority. Well, this question has been answered already. I think it's worth noting that no nominee is "automatically elected." However, in the case of a sole nominee for office and where the bylaws do not mandate a ballot vote for elections, RONR does allow for the chair to announce the election of a sole nominee by "acclamation" (or unanimous consent). The election meeting would, however, need to be held, with floor nominations being called for (unless your rules prevent that). Also, a motion to vote by ballot could be adopted by a majority vote, allowing write-in voting, which might lead to someone else being elected, or at the very least, a failure of any nominee to receive a majority vote, requiring re-balloting until a majority vote is attained by someone.
  7. And..... the write-in candidate gets on the ballot... how? You have no problem with write-ins, but "last minute" nominations are anathema to a fair process? Hmmm.......
  8. It's what I get for being a cheap SOB and buying the Standard Edition (at a yard sale, no less!).
  9. And if you don't have a quorum, but at least a majority of those in attendance feel this whole meeting-canceling business is not right, you can adopt a motion to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn To (Section 22, RONR 11th), creating an "adjourned meeting" (which actually would be a continuation of this meeting), at which you might have a quorum (if you can get the needed number of members there) and can get down to business. (edited to add and delete text above
  10. Nope. It's an "unwritten rule." RONR contains nothing about the possibility of canceling a meeting, the assumption being a regularly scheduled or properly called meeting must be held. The bylaws, on the other hand, may empower some person/body to change the date and/or time of a meeting, or possibly cancel one. It is there (the bylaws, or other governing rules) you will find reference to canceling meetings, and who can do it if at all.
  11. Nothing in RONR gives the authority to any person or body to cancel a properly scheduled meeting (regular per the bylaws, or called [special] meeting). That authority would need to come from your bylaws or other governing rules. Your bylaws apparently don't, so perhaps any higher rules (national organization, statute, etc) might. But not RONR.
  12. Sure, if you'd just stop and take a breath......
  13. Yes, it is when whole people and one-person-one-vote is the rule. I'm thinking about weighted voting though, where it might be possible to get 4.6 votes in favor. Better to stick with sMargaret's first sentence, I'd say, and shy away from the rounding concept.
  14. Nor does it say they should (or must) leave the meeting hall or refrain from entering into debate. No, not beyond the cited reference to abstaining.
  15. Recuse means to withdraw from the decision making process because of personal interest or unfairness. I don't believe I've read any definition of recusal that involves physically removing yourself from the premises as well.
  16. What happens to the board? They carry on. The VP becomes Prez, you have vacancies in the VP and Prez-Elect office, and you fill them. How did those two positions become vacant?
  17. 1. Yes. 2. "A meeting enters into executive session only when required by rule or established custom, or upon the adoption of a motion to do so." (RONR 11 p. 95 ll. 26-28) 3. Minutes are taken in Exec Sessions just as in open sessions, and are afforded the same level of secrecy of the session itself. No recap would be placed in the "regular minutes."
  18. Do you mean "in one shot"? Or do you mean one director is not present? Or do you mean one director is under 5' tall?
  19. It sounds to me like your customized rule would apply to filling a vacancy when one of the newly elected board members resigns. As you can now see, this rule is problematic at best, and should probably be amended out of the bylaws, but that's for the organization to decide. But the member who resigned was already on the board, not one recently elected. So your bylaws should have some provision for filling vacancies in such a case. Is there nothing else in your bylaws that addresses this situation? Or is your custom rule all they say about filling vacancies?
  20. Are we at the same meeting that has no quorum? What item would be voted on, then? Who does the president say this to? The board? Who is the "they" that is asking? Personally, this is a little vague. Are you asking how the president, during a board meeting, calls for a vote on a motion that is pending? Let's go forward with that for now. The standard is for the chair (president), after it appears all debate has concluded, to ask "Are you ready for the question?" This means "are you ready to vote?" If no other member attempts to continue debate or introduce some other motion perhaps, the chair then restates the motion as it stands now (with any amendments to it perhaps included) and calls for the vote, aye and no. Of course, if you had something else in mind.......
  21. My last question notwithstanding, my response was serious. I was simply trying to determine what differentiates an "informal" meeting from a "formal" one. And as I still don't know the answer to that, it's hard to say whether minutes should be taken, or previous minutes approved, at such a meeting.
  22. What does "informal" mean to you? Was there an actual meeting held, with business conducted (motions, debate and votes, oh my)? Or was this just a bunch of people (who happen to belong to the board) gathering in the same place at the same time and talking stuff? Was everyone in jeans and polo shirts?
  23. RONR deals with parliamentary concerns in the context of a meeting, so I doubt you'll find answers there. Your bylaws and policies should clarify your question, although they apparently do not. Bylaws often include some language such as "The Board shall have general supervision of the affairs of the society between meetings." What this can fail to clarify is how? If a decision needs to be made on a day-to-day basis, who can initiate it? Only the President? Or the VP as well? Any board member? How is it decided? Does the Board need to be polled, via phone call or email perhaps? Is any particular officer authorized to act, within certain limits (such as a cap on how much he can spend unilaterally)? If your policies through some (perhaps) vague language give the "direction" authority only to the President, that might be interpreted that he has, in some fashion, final say over any such decisions. All of this creeps deeply into the area of bylaw/policy interpretation, which will be up to the organization to decide. Amending the bylaws/policies to clarify this seems warranted. See RONR (10th Ed.) pp. 570-573 for some help with interpretation.
×
×
  • Create New...