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. I find it intriguing that a motion that was defeated unanimously at the previous meeting now receives a 5-2 vote in favor at this meeting. That's quite a swing (from 0-7 to 5-2). Um.... sorry, but...... no one person can be "running the shots" without the acquiescence of at least a majority, if not more, of members. Where is the Chair/President in all this? The other members? Because everyone else lets her.
  2. Well, that's really for you all to say. We don't interpret bylaws here. You may find some helpful insights on pp. 588-591 (RONR 11th Ed.) Yep. If you look at the section starting on page 91, you'll see that (according to RONR, 11th ed.) the call of the meeting should include the "purpose of the meeting, clearly and specifically describing the subject matter of the motions or items of business to be brought up."
  3. If you look at the section starting on page 91, you'll see that (according to RONR) the call of the meeting should include the "purpose of the meeting, clearly and specifically describing the subject matter of the motions or items of business to be brought up." It also defines special meetings as those that are "to deal with matters that may arise between regular meetings and that require action by the society before the next regular meeting, or to dedicate an entire session to one or more particular matters." What you have described sounds more like a general, regular meeting. Now, since yo
  4. Do your bylaws or constitution authorize absentee voting? Not that that would have any bearing on the amendment question, but RONR does not, so your rules need to authorize it. (RONR 11th Ed., pp. 423-424) Well, there does seem to be a contradiction. But your constitution and bylaws can only be interpreted in their entirety, and not by anyone on this forum. See pp. 588-591 (RONR 11th Ed.) for some insights.
  5. It is? Is this something found in RONR? I might be missing that page.
  6. Informed by whom, and under what authority is this statement made?
  7. Well, pp. 487-488 deal with boards, while p. 16 deals with societies (i.e. general membership).
  8. I think I've narrowed down the key element here.
  9. I also don't think that because the Board adopts a motion, it has set a policy or procedure. It may be, and often would be I suspect, simply a decision to take an action, with no long lasting enforceable policy or procedure enacted.
  10. RONR does make reference to notice, in the section on regular meetings, being sent by email to members who agree to receive it in that fashion. (RONR 11, p. 89) Beyond that, I can't put my finger on another citation at the moment. In general, I'd say that "written" refers to something read (as opposed to a phone call), and "sent" means mailed through the postal service, but those arguments have not been definitively resolved as I recall.
  11. RONR has no rule requiring two (or more) readings, so you're on your own here. The expected approach is that a resolution (or motion) will be made, followed by debate, and a vote, all at one meeting. Certainly, the motion can be Postponed or Referred prior to voting on it, causing it to come before the assembly at a later meeting, at which time further debate would be allowed. This is not the same as requiring two "readings". As this is a custom rule in your bylaws, which supercede RONR, the details (such as you are inquiring about) should all be in there as well.
  12. RONR does not require the minutes be distributed prior to the meeting at which they are to be approved, although it does allow that it can be done so that all members might have read them prior to the approval meeting. 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. (RON
  13. No rule in RONR prevents it, nor requires it.
  14. And just to make note here, a member who does not have the right to vote does not count towards a quorum. What impact that may have on your meeting, one can only guess.
  15. I agree. While p. 458 does mention two specific instances of vacancy, I don't read it as definitive. It probably needs to be reworded less specifically, or reference p. 575 for additional insights. Just my opinion, or course.
  16. If the motion to table is in order, making it while debate is in progress on the pending motion is not an issue. The question really is, what was the intent of the purpose of "tabling" the pending motion? It probably should have been handled with a different motion, such as to Postpone, or Refer to a committee. If the motion to Table was offered as a means of essentially stopping consideration of the pending motion and moving on to other business, than it probably wasn't in order and should have been ruled so by the Chair.
  17. I think this is about the time when someone usually notes that RONR has been around for a long time, through 11 editions now, and with each revision it refines the understanding of the basics of parliamentary law as it applies as generally as possible, taking into account cultural changes (such as the internet and email), and so on and so forth. However, what it always allows is for any society to adopt its own rules (bylaws, special rules of order, standing rules, etc) that more specifically suit its needs, and these rules take precedence over RONR. If enough of your members feel the changes
  18. Well, at least you led with "Maybe" and covered that base.
  19. Or any edition? Just to be technical, you can't just "throw out the bylaws". The only way you can validly "get rid of" the bylaws is to Rescind them, in which case this would dissolve the organization, and you'd have to start over. Oh??? Really???
  20. I would have guessed the committee would rise and report it's recommendation/nomination to the membership, and that would then be brought to a motion/vote at the March 17 meeting. I would not have expected a motion to come out of this committee report if the vote is not for three more weeks. Just thinking out loud.....
×
×
  • Create New...