Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

442 profile views
  1. Hello- Your agreement is about adding a proviso? That sounds workable and reasonable :" Starting with the 2022 Board election"? But isn't there a general sentiment in the law to avoid ex post facto coverage? Were Joe to know that in the future there'll be a three term limit, retroactive, he may have sat the 2018 elections out? He did not, and now he is hit? Thanks yoram
  2. Our Board does not have term limits. We are re-writing the bylaws, and plan to include term limits. Will the new term limits rule apply only from the time the new bylaws are adopted, or will it take into consideration terms served before the term limits rule is enacted, and be retroactive? Thanks, Yoram
  3. Hello- The lawyers (ha..) who are advising our organization confirmed to me now that there is no legal basis for what they urged us to do. The parliamentarian fell for it. The board fell for it. The general membership meeting fell for it. If you do not do it ( cancel the ongoing, by the bylaw schedule election), and re-set to September, the sky will fall. Not unlike discovering that the security patrol you hired burglarized your home. Efficient but disheartening. Thanks, Yoram
  4. We are a 501-c-6, non for profit business organization. Our annual elections of officers and board are covered in the bylaws in great detail: Qualifications of candidates in May, elections voting etc. in an election general meeting in June, term starts July 1. The association is in turmoil, and consultants advised to scrap the annual election now in progress ,extend the term of the current administration to September, and hold the annual elections then. Proposed and seconded to 'suspend the rules', to scrap the current election process, extend the current board's term, a
  5. It is not "for the bank". When you deposit the bank can lend. This particular bank lends to communities that need loans, badly, private and small business. Everyone wins. That is why I bypassed the organization's "leadership", went directly to the membership, and they understood and supported, decisively. Rabbi Hillel would've approved. Yoram
  6. Hello- We plan to amend a bylaw but want to restore it after one year, automatically, so we will not need to go again through an amendment process. What is the correct language to use? As an example, the by law now says "a maximum of five members". We want to change it to ten members, but restore to the original limit of five after one year. Something like: "Admit five new members shall be amended to read admit ten members, and this sentence shall be struck on december 31, 2021" ? Or? Thanks Yoram
  7. UPDATE AND RESOLUTION- After I had enough fighting leadership's [ha] foot dragging, punting and sandbagging, I took the motion to the General Membership meeting. The support was solid- 36 Yays, 8 Noes. A year after first raising the idea, we deposited a million dollars in a CD held at a Black Owned Bank. Yoram
  8. Thank you gentlemen. And Richard- you are too generous. Yes, SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUT TO A VOTE. But it was not. That is why I posted to the Forum. There was no CONSENT. Only punting. Head in the sand. The president told the Ex Sec to put the matter on the Finance Committee's agenda. Not to transfer funds. No funds were transferred. Nothing was done. As Rob Elsman wrote- CHAOS. Background: The Board started discussing how to help Black communities back in JULY. Speeches, proposals ("hire a diversity consultant...") but nothing done. Zero. When this simple
  9. A motion was on the Board's agenda. It asked the Board to act on a policy matter. After a discussion, the president ordered the motion sent to the Finance Committee. It had to do with a financial matter (depositing some money in a Black owned bank to show our organization's support, but there was no expense. Just moving funds from our bank, no cost, and no risk---the amount was kept under the FDIC insurance limit). There was no motion to punt instead of deciding, and of course no vote. Not on the motion itself, and not on sending it to a committee. Ju
  10. This was posted before, but with too many details, and the results, no surprise, were tangled. Apologies. Here it is again, stripped down and simplified. To guide us in the future. Assume: A grantee organization asked for another ,annual grant, $80,000 as they got last year. A trustee submitted a motion , on time and in writing, saying: "I move to again fund the grant request, as presented, $ 80,000, and also the customary 10% contingency of $ 8,000. .. An $88,000 grant for 2020." A discussion ensued: There was a suggestion to cut down to $50,000
  11. Hello Gary- Thanks for the early reply. "Sloppy" yes, because of the CORVID-19 Zoom format of the meeting. The President ordered a combined vote: Yes if you agree to the Grant Officer's $50,000 proposal. When that failed, with 5 yes and 6 no, the other, Trustee motion was declared the winner. The issue is that the Executive Secretary did not record it as "Thus, The Trustee's motion to grant $93,500 carries". He recorded it as "Thus, (the XXX ,Grantee- applicant) will receive the full grant amount requested." But of course the "full grant amount re
  12. Our organization gives grants. A foundation that was granted $85,000 in 2019, asked for another $85,000 grant for 2020. A Trustee filed a motion with the executive secretary, ahead of the Trustees meeting , writing: "I move to again fund the grant request, as presented, $ 85,000, and also the customary 10% contingency of $ 8,500. .. A $93,500 grant for 2020." The grants officer proposed to give only a $50,000 grant. The Trustees thus had two motions on the table: The Grants officer: $50,000 A Trustee: $ 93,500 At the meeting, the two mo
  13. Hello- I gave the information you provided to our Parliamentrian, and he ruled accordingly at the GMM .Our VP will now be the Presient for the balance of the term Peace in he valley. Thanks Yoram
  14. We are a small tradeorganization, with bylaws under Roberts Rules. Our President died in office. The bylaws deal with this situation in two places. 6.2D says that in this case, the Vice President shall "“Assume and discharge the duties, obligations and responsibilities of the office of the President if it becomes vacant, " One faction interprets this to mean that the V.P. will become the President for the remainder of the term, because the bylaw does not say that it is interim, or acting, but rather that the VP assumes the office of Pres
  • Create New...