Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Richard Brown

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Richard Brown

Profile Information

  • Location:
    New Orleans, LA

Recent Profile Visitors

4,232 profile views
  1. The election of the new vice president may be postponed until the next regular meeting, but the motion to postpone it would be out of order until the election is actually pending. In other words, once the chair states that the next item of business is the election of a vice President to fill the vacancy just created, the election is then pending and may be postponed until the next regular meeting or until a special meeting to be held prior to the next regular meeting. All of that is provided for on page 185 at lines 7 through 27.
  2. Welcome to the forum! I think the highlighted phrase says what it means and means what it says. If a member of the public addresses this public body and supplies a summary of his comments not exceeding 150 words, the written summary must be Included verbatim in the minutes. Note, however, that this appears to me to be more of a legal question and a matter of interpreting the laws and rules that you are subject to rather than a question of parliamentary law. Have you asked the city attorney for his opinion on this? If so, I would be interested in knowing what that opinion is. Edited to add: in other words, I think the quoted provision in state law trumps the rules in RONR regarding white should be in the minutes.
  3. I overlooked this last question in my comments above. The answer to who exercises those powers and duties might be found in your own bylaws. If they say anything about officers continuing to serve until their successors are elected, it may be that the officer currently holding that position continues to serve until such time as his successor is elected or he resigns. Another option is one that I mentioned in my comment above: the assembly may designate someone to take care of some or all of those duties until such time as someone can be elected to the position.
  4. Yes. Yes, but this becomes more problematic. It amounts to an intentional violation of the bylaws and would likely be out of order. I think not, since the bylaws seem to require the election of someone. To say, in essence, "We don't care if the bylaws call for the election of Chief Cleanup Officer, we are not going to elect one. It would be in contravention of the bylaws. Yes. But you must follow the proper procedure for amending the bylaws. I can't cite you a provision in RONR which says you can do that, but I think it is possible. Designating someone else to temporarily perform the duties of that officer, however, does not make that person an officer. You might call him the "Interim Clean Up Guy", but it is a title pretty much in name only and gives him none of the privileges that a duly elected "Chief Cleanup Guy" would have as an officer. It would not put him on the board if you have a bylaw provision which says "all officers shall be members of the board". He isn't an officer so he isn't on the board (unless he gets on the board some other way, such as by being elected as a board member at large if you have such a position). No one is going to hold a gun to your heads and compel you to elect someone to a position. To fail or refuse to elect someone to a position required in the bylaws is a knowing violation of the bylaws. However, it is up to the membership to enforce its own rules, and if no one is willing to serve as "Chief Cleanup Officer" and if the members are unwilling to elect someone to the position, there is no RONR Police Force to barge in and force you to do it. The assembly is in control of its own destiny. If the bylaws provide for this position, it should be filled. JJ summed it up very well with this one sentence comment above:
  5. Agreeing with Messrs Katz and Kapur, I also think the comments were germane and in order. I can see how I might feel differently if the society had previously adopted a bylaw provision or other rule in essence requiring the society to designate "official foods of the society". In that case, it could be argued that the member's comments were out of order, but the member could then do as Mr. Katz and tell the assembly that if the motion to rescind the banana as the official fruit is voted down, he will move to rescind or amend the rule requiring that the society designate "official foods"... or at least the designation of an official fruit.
  6. I agree. If a provision in the current bylaws say any amendments take effect at the close of the Annual Meeting, then that is when they will take effect unless and until that provision is itself amended or removed.... which said removal won't take effect until the end of the annual meeting. I do agree that a proviso could EXTEND or DELAY the time at which an amendment takes effect, but it cannot move the effective date up.
  7. No, I don't think we can say your statement is incorrect. You may... or may not... be correct when you say that her membership was suspended in all respects. I think it depends on precisely what the motion or order of suspension states. If it says her rights of membership (or certain rights) are suspended, that means one thing. But if it says "she is hereby suspended as a member of this organization", I believe that means something else entirely. Ultimately, I believe it is a legal question, not a parliamentary one, and a question of interpreting your organization's bylaws.
  8. Isn't that a legal question, or at least a matter of interpreting the organization's bylaws, rather than a parliamentary issue for which RONR provides an answer? If RONR does say that a member whose membership has been suspended is nonetheless still a member, I would appreciate a citation. I cannot find any such statement. btw, the original poster did not say the members rights are under suspension. He said her membership has been suspended (or that the member "has been placed on suspension"). I am, however, aware of organizations which provide that if a member is suspended, he ceases being a member for the period of the suspension and must sometimes (but not always) re-apply for membership when the period of suspension is over. Some make reinstatement of membership automatic upon completion of the suspension and some require re-application. We have not seen this organization's bylaws in their entirety and don't know what they say regarding the effect of being suspended as a member. I just don't think we have the information we need nor the right to say definitively whether this person, who has been suspended from membership, is still a member. I believe such a determination is legal in nature and beyond the scope of this forum, and especially based on the limited information we have. Edited to add: in addition, we have not seen The actual motion or order suspending the member. The exact language in that order might well be determinative. If it says the member’s rights of membership are suspended, it means one thing. But if it says her membership is suspended, or she is suspended as a member, I believe that could mean something quite different End it is up to this organization itself to interpret what it means.
  9. I’m not so sure. I gave a lot of thought to that statement by Mr. Martin last night and even spent some time researching it. I am still unsure, although Mr. Martin may indeed be technically correct. The motion to reconsider is classed as a “bring back motion”, which is not always a main motion. RONR says that all main motions which are not withdrawn should be recorded in the minutes. if I were the secretary, I would state that “a motion to reconsider the motion to paint the barn red from January XX was made by John Smith and seconded by Jack Jones. The motion to reconsider was adopted. (Edited to remove the vote count) From there I would proceed as Mr. Martin suggested. When it is time to approve the minutes, the assembly could approve the minutes as you prepared them or could order a correction so that they read the way Mr. Martin suggested.
  10. You about had me persuaded until your last paragraph, quoted above. I disagree with that statement. Actually, I don’t think this statement makes sense. Does that statement say exactly what you intended to say? For years in this forum, whenever the question of whether a member is in good standing has arisen, our response has been that it is up to the organization in question to determine what it takes for a member to be in good or bad standing. I think it is absolutely possible for a person to be a member but not be in good standing. Edited to add: I think that for me the question here boils down to whether this person is a member not in good standing or whether she is not a member at all at this point in time if her membership has been suspended.
  11. I initially started to say that I agree with JJ and with Mr. Martin's comments. However, upon further reflection, I'm not so sure. You say this member was suspended for one year. Was her membership suspended or is she just under some restrictions as to her rights as a member? If her membership has actually been suspended... in ALL respects... then I think there is a real question as to whether she must or should be allowed to pay dues for the year of her suspension. The question may be, "If a member's membership is suspended, is that person still a member while the membership is suspended?" Being a member not in good standing seems to me to be different from having the membership suspended. I see how this can be interpreted either way. It is ultimately up to the members of this organization to interpret its bylaws. We cannot do that for you.
  12. Thank you, Shmuel. I am very sorry to hear of his passing. I have always been particularly fond of Dr. Stackpole. I have admired him since my days on the "old" forum 20 years or so ago back in the late 90's and early 2000's. My first NAP convention was the 2003 Convention in San Antonio, where I shared a room with another of our recently departed contributors, Gary Tesser. Meeting Dr. Stackpole at that convention and getting to spend time with him was one of the highlights of the convention and something I had most looked forward to. Getting to know Gary Tesser and George Mervosh, who were also very active on the old forum, were probably the other two highlights for me at that convention. I will miss Dr. Stackpole's regular lectures about the problems with "co-anythings"!
  13. But he is still a member of the board, is he not? Which means he is a director, right? And RONR says directors should be classified as directors unless the bylaws provide otherwise, correct? Are you saying he should be treated differently because he is on the Board ex officio, by virtue of some other position he holds ? Shouldn’t he be treated and listed precisely the same as the other directors? He is no less a director than the other directors, is he? Consider this: what if the bylaws provide that the officers shall be a president, vice president, secretary, treasurer, and Historian. And assume The bylaws further provide that all officers shall be elected except for the historian, who shall be the immediate past president. Would you still maintain that the historian is not an officer and should not be listed as one since he’s not elected?
  14. Thanks, Atul. I thought it was stated more succinctly somewhere in RONR, but I did not have the time to search for it. Thanks for finding it!
  15. These quotations from the bottom of page 114: After a main motion has been made and before the question has been stated by the chair, any member can quickly rise and, with little or no explanatory comment, informally suggest one or more modifications in the motion, which at this point the maker can accept or reject as he wishes (see pp. 40–41). Application of this method should generally be limited to minor changes about which there is unlikely to be a difference of opinion. After the question has been stated by the chair—although the assembly, and not the maker of the motion, then has control over its wording—the maker can request unanimous consent to modify the motion (see pp. 295–98). If any member then objects, however, the desired modification must be introduced in the form of a motion to Amend, as noted below.
  • Create New...