Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Libran's Achievements

  1. I read the Feb thread about "Tabling" and Postpone Indefinitely and just want to confirm what it "looks like" in a meeting. RONR says: "If it is desired to dispose of a question without a direct vote, the suitable method is to use the motion to Postpone Indefinitely. If it is desired to do this without further debate, the motion to Postpone Indefinitely can be followed immediately by a motion for the Previous Question." RONR (12th ed.) 17:18 (my underline) 1. Does this mean a member can do both motions in one step, saying, "I move to Postpone Indefinitely and I move the Previous Question"? 2. Or, does Postpone Indefinitely have to be stated by the chair and open for debate before the motion maker can be recognized again to move the Previous Question? So it might go like this: " Member A: I move to Postpone the main motion Indefinitely. Member B: Second. Chair: It is moved and seconded to Postpone the main motion Indefinitely. Is there any debate? Member A (who gets to speak first since she made the motion). Member A: I move the Previous Question. Member B: Second" 3. It was suggested that the motion to Suspend the Rules could also be used to kill the main motion with one step. Would that go like this: "Member A: I move to Suspend the Rules and Postpone the main motion Indefinitely without further debate." I appreciate your help with these scenarios. Thanks.
  2. A discussion came up in our group about scope of notice. In 57:11, it says, "If the bylaws require previous notice for their amendment (as they should), or if they do not but notice has been given and a majority of the entire membership is not present, no amendment to a bylaw amendment is in order that increases the modification of the article or provision to be amended (see 35:2(6))." Does that imply that if there is a majority of the entire membership present there can be amendments beyond the scope of notice? Please explain.
  3. If the Previous Question is voted on and ordered on the debate of an appeal (e.g. whether an amendment is germane), does the chair still get to speak last, or does debate end immediately? Page 258, lines 6-8 says, "He can answer arguments against the decision or give additional reasons by speaking a second time at the close of the debate," (my underline) which makes me think he can, but I want to be sure I'm interpreting that correctly. Thanks.
  4. Scenario: Organization holds its board of director elections electronically at the end of July, but the directors don't take office until the biennial membership meeting in November. A current board member was reelected. After the election, he was upset about one of the other elected members and said very bad things about the other member on social media. The rest of the board would like to remove him from the board, and the bylaws allow the board to do this. "Any Director or Officer elected or appointed by the membership may be removed by the Board of Directors whenever, in their judgment, the best interests of the Association would be served thereby. Removal of a Director requires a two thirds majority vote of the full Board of Directors." Questions: 1. I understand they can remove him for cause from the current board, but can they prevent him from taking office on the new board in November, by including in the disciplinary action that he has since been disqualified to serve, or that the breach of "conduct injuring the good name of the organization" applies to the future board as well? 2. If they prevent him from taking office, is the open position considered an incomplete election or a vacancy? 3. If they cannot prevent him from taking office, would the new board have to go through the whole disciplinary process again after the November meeting? Thanks for your help.
  5. Thank you, Mr. Martin. I forgot that "rules which have their application outside of the session which is in progress cannot be suspended." RONR (11th ed.) p. 264, ll.29-30. Your other comments and suggestions make sense. Now I have a related "What if". If the motion was simply to "have the 2019 conference at City A", and we did not have the 18 month requirement, the member would have been able to move to Postpone Indefinitely, right? Can you have a blank as part of a main motion? Would having a blank ("have the 2019 conference at City ___") make Postpone Indefinitely not in order? The motion was about choosing a location, and he wanted to kill the motion without a direct vote so he could talk to the folks at his home unit about their preferences. I'm just curious about the effect of the blank and Postpone Indefinitely.
  6. Our organization had its fall council meeting this weekend. One of the agenda items was to determine the location of the 2019 spring conference. Our procedures (not bylaws) require that the location be determined at least 18 months prior to the conference. The main motion was proposed as a fill in the blank, with 3 suggestions for locations. A ballot vote was ordered, due to the way our proxies are counted. During debate, a delegate wanted to postpone the motion so he could talk to his unit members about their preferences. He tried to postpone to a certain time, which the chair ruled out of order, as the next meeting isn't until May 2018. #1 -- Would it have been in order to suspend the rules (about determining the location 18 months ahead of time) to postpone indefinitely, so as to kill the motion for this session (and presumably renew it at the May 2018 meeting)? #2 -- Or, since fill in the blank is a form of an amendment, is postpone indefinitely not in order, due to the precedence of motions, even though the original motion was presented as a main motion with options? #3 -- Since suspend the rules is not debatable, could he have spoken in debate on the main motion and then made the motion to suspend the rules and postpone indefinitely? And there would be no further debate? Thanks for your help.
  7. It was a different committee (not the Nominating Committee). Have others encountered this interpretation of the VP stepping in? It's pretty standard bylaws language, isn't it? So if I understand it correctly, in the short term, the majority decides the interpretation, and in the long term the organization needs to revise the bylaws to be more specific as to when and how the VP can carry out the presidential duties. Any suggested wording would be helpful. Thanks.
  8. The bylaws say the President shall serve ex-officio on all committees except the Nominating Committee. They also say: "The Vice-President will: (1) Perform all the duties of the President in his/her absence." The President could not attend a committee meeting. He asked the Vice President to attend in his place. An important vote was taken. Should the VP's vote have counted, or is it considered a proxy vote, which isn't allowed? Is the VP "performing the duties of the President in his/her absence" or does that not include the ex-officio duties? Thanks in advance for your help.
  9. Thanks for clarifying, Mr. Honemann. And thanks for the reminder about the subsidiary motion not being debatable. I know better.
  10. Tinted Pages, motion #40. It sort of discusses it on p. 223, ll. 22-29, under the Call for Orders of the Day motion. I initially thought the subsidiary Extend Limits of Debate would apply to any pending main motion, but this makes it seem like even if the privileged motion Call for the Orders of the Day was not pending, the chair would have to treat it like Suspend the Rules to extend the time for consideration (hence, not allowing debate or amendment on the motion to extend debate). Do I understand that right? And at the end of that time, is the main motion then able to be referred or postponed, since the motion to Extend was an incidental motion, or must the main motion be voted on immediately, like with the subsidiary motion? Would the subsidiary motion to Extend Debate ever be allowed if there is a set time on the agenda for consideration of a motion?
  11. My questions refer to TP #40, which is "Extend time for consideration of pending question, or time until announced or scheduled adjournment or recess". It is classified as an incidental motion that is not debatable or amendable, among other characteristics. Is it only an incidental motion with no debate or amendment if the privileged motion "Call for orders of the day" is pending or if there is a set time on the agenda for its consideration? If there is a set time on the agenda for consideration, is the debatable and amendable subsidiary motion to Extend the Limits of Debate then not in order? Thanks.
  12. If an organization has a standing bylaws committee listed in its bylaws, can its members take it upon themselves to recommend a bylaws revision, or must that request or direction come from the assembly and be referred to the committee?
  • Create New...