Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Richard Brown

Members
  • Content Count

    7,697
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

Profile Information

  • Location:
    New Orleans, LA

Recent Profile Visitors

4,631 profile views
  1. I agree that that sounds like "New Business", but it t also seems that it might be in the nature of the class of business commonly referred to as "Good of the Order, General Good and Welfare or Open Forum" that some societies have as a standard item of business following New Business. It is discussed on page 362 ot the 11th edition.
  2. I agree that a chairman pro tem can be elected to serve as chairman in the absence of the regular chairman, but I also see nothing in RONR which prohibits a committee from having one or more vice chairs. I think it depends on the situation, how the committee was established, etc.
  3. Do your bylaws permit electronic meetings and/or voting?
  4. Unless you have a customized rule to the contrary, a candidate need not be present at the election in order to be elected and his prior permission is technically not necessary, although advisable.
  5. I agree. That quoted bylaw language, if it is indeed a direct quote, clears things up a lot.
  6. Same answer as the two previous ones. Never.
  7. You covered a lot of territory in that post and in order to properly answer your questions we really need to know what the exact wording is of the existing rules and the proposed rules. As I imagine you already know, rules in the bylaws cannot be suspended unless they are in the nature of rules of order or if they provide for their own suspension. A bylaw provision which provides that any of the bylaw provisions may be suspended would accomplish the same purpose. HOWEVER, I think that all of us who regularly post in this forum will tell you and everyone else that the ability to suspend anything in the bylaws at will is a very bad idea. I will add that if your organization is determined to make certain bylaw provisions suspendable, it should be permitted only with a very high vote threshold. I would urge extreme caution.
  8. That's the way I read it, but the language on page 264 at lines 14-28 could still be problematic. I'm anxious to see what both Mr. Gerber and Mr. Honemann have to say about your point.
  9. Pippenger, the same is true in small boards of no more than about a dozen members.
  10. If your bylaws don't call for various officers to be elected in different years, how did your organization get started with the custom of electing them in different years? I think that is where you went wrong. If an office becomes vacant and someone is selected to fill the vacancy, that person finishes out the term if the person who he replaced. He does not start a new two-year term in his own right. He is merely completing the term of the person he replaced.
  11. What do your bylaws say about the notice required for a proposed bylaw amendment? If you don't believe the notice provided is proper or adequate, you can raise a point of order at the meeting that proper notice of the proposed bylaw amendments was not given. The chair rules on the point of order, but then any two members (one to make the appeal and someone to second it) can appeal from the ruling of the chair. Assuming the chair knows and follows proper parliamentary procedure, the membership then votes whether to sustain or overturn the ruling of the chair. It takes a majority vote to overturn the ruling of the chair. The ruling is sustained on a tie vote. The decision of the membership on the appeal is final. Let us know if you need more information on that. As others have stated (or at least hinted), you and your like minded friends can spread the word to other members that something you don't like is going on and encourage them to show up at the meeting and vote against the proposals. That will likely get better results than parliamentary maneuvering, especially is the chair doesn't understand or won't follow proper parliamentary procedure. You and your friends just vote against the board's proposals.
  12. I agree. I believe there are some old threads in the forum which say essentially the same thing: The "anticipated" vacancy can be filled now, in advance of the office actually becoming vacant. The society should make sure, however, that the officer's prospective resignation has actually been tendered and accepted prior to filling the vacancy.
  13. Atul, an adjourned meeting is actually a continuation of the same session, but it is not a continuation of the same meeting. It is a separate meeting, just as a single session can consist of several meetings. Back several years ago, I incurred the Wrath of Dan (actually he was very polite but firm), when I made the mistake of posting in this forum that an adjourned meeting is a continuation of the same meeting. Dan pointed out quite firmly that an adjourned meeting is a continuation of the same session, but not of the same meeting.
  14. I understand your concern, but I interpret Mr. Martin’s suggested language as permitting both the cancellation of regular meetings and the addition of regular meetings in July and August. I suppose it is ultimately a question of bylaws interpretation.
  15. Is that what you meant to say? I agree that such a rule would be permissible, but I think it would be exceedingly unusual.
×
×
  • Create New...