Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

David A Foulkes

Members
  • Content Count

    5,602
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by David A Foulkes

  1. Because it sounds like you're talking about a vote to approve the minutes......... ------------------------------------------ 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 onl
  2. Who did this insinuating, and when? Or do you mean some other word, such as "it was assumed", or "it was understood", or "it was interpreted"?
  3. And until the resignation is acted upon, it can be unilaterally withdrawn by the board member, and s/he stays on the board.
  4. Agreed, although I suppose that assumption was made. Guest_Harvey -- are these "certain educational requirements" noted in the bylaws as qualifications to hold office?
  5. Hmmm..... as I read the original post, Guest_Harvey was questioning the validity of votes taken, and decisions made, subsequent to the member's becoming disqualified to hold office. You think he was asking something else?
  6. I don't think anyone's in disagreement with you on that point. But after adoption of the amendment, I'd say that only those decisions in which his vote could have made affected the outcome would be questionable.
  7. Are these "certain educational requirements" established in the bylaws, as qualification for holding office? Post-disqualification, any decisions in which his one vote could have affected the outcome might be suspect, if there were a way to determine that.
  8. A revision is a form of amendment, as is any change to the bylaws. It is typically one comprising numerous and wide-spread changes, as opposed to one or only a few very targeted changes. Amendments to the bylaws take effect immediately upon adoption, and with regards to such things as length of term, absent a proviso to the contrary the 2-year term is now in force. The only way to Rescind a bylaw amendment is to amend them again, following the current process for amendment. In other words, what Edgar said.
  9. Should be, or is? Do your bylaws contain term limits of three consecutive years? RONR contains no such restriction, so it would have to be found in your bylaws or other governing rules. The bylaws would need to be interpreted in their entirety, which is beyond the scope of this forum. See pp 588-591 (RONR 11th ed.) for some insights. Just because no other person "puts their name in" does not mean they might not be eligible to serve, and could be elected by write-in votes. So all is not completely lost yet. But, if no one is willing to take on the board positions of leadership, perhaps it
  10. If the motion was defeated, the prevailing side would be those who voted no. Edited to add: It occurs to me you probably think that since the vote was a tie, no side prevailed. This is not the case. A tie defeats the motion as equally as if all votes were cast against it. The no's prevailed.
  11. Perhaps the February chair pro tem listens while the Secretary reads the minutes from the January meeting? (RONR 11th ed., p. 123 ll. 9-18)
  12. RONR says that a member should abstain from voting when they have a "direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members", but cannot be compelled to refrain from voting. (RONR 11th ed., p. 407 ll. 21-31) So, while you say "can't vote", RONR says "shouldn't vote." However, even if this member knows in advance that s/he will (properly) abstain, if that is the case, no rule in RONR otherwise restricts his/her rights regarding speaking in debate.
  13. Just so you know, Guest_Islander reposted as a New Topic.
  14. Soo.... a vote was taken on the amended motion and one member opposed it so you had to have a revote???
  15. Under the rules in RONR, if there is only one nominee and the bylaws do not require a ballot vote for elections, the Chair would simply announce the sole candidate for each office elected by acclamation. (RONR 11th ed., p. 443 ll. 7-12) No rule in RONR prevents it, although RONR does strongly discourage the President having anything to do with the nominating committee.
  16. I believe the board rode in on the piggy's back.
  17. Or even jump ahead to page 588 and start there!
  18. I read it that JJ was indicating the methods that the chair could properly handle the motion - by stating it, or ruling it out of order.
  19. Assuming you are a member of the Board, you would make a motion to go into Executive session. It requires a majority vote.
  20. Yes. The Board, by majority vote or unanimous consent, may allow non-members to attend a meeting. By a 2/3 vote, the Board may even Suspend The Rules to allow a non-member to speak in debate on a pending motion, although the non-member would still not be allowed to vote on any question.
  21. I think you have this twisted a little. There is a section in RONR (as Dr. Stackpole has cited) that prevents one session from binding the hands of a future session. It's not about the society binding the hands of future members. The society is free to adopt bylaws that specify such things as how the Vice President will automatically become the President at the end of the VP's term, and the society's members (current and future) are free to amend those bylaws to change that process. If the membership, through adoption/amendment of the bylaws, feels that procedure is preferrable, so be it.
  22. Well, while it may help to "move the meeting along", I don't believe anything in RONR gives this authority (i.e. to announce a motion adopted by, or at the very least to call for, unanimous consent) to anyone other than the chair.
×
×
  • Create New...