Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Richard Brown

Members
  • Posts

    9,413
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Richard Brown

  1. Your question concerns your own rules and bylaws as much or more than RONR. We need to know a lot more about what your own bylaws say about how your board members are selected, their terms of office and how vacancies are filled in order to answer your question.
  2. Agreeing with both J.J. and Mr. Esman, it is also possible that those who favor the amendment can persuade other members, whether they were present at or absent from the meeting, to come to a future meeting at which they plan to try again and to support the amendment when it is brought up again. There is no prohibition against such lobbying.
  3. Unless there is some law or rule to the contrary, the vote to dissolve was effective immediately upon the chair announcing the result of the vote. Therefore, it is my opinion that the funds should be disbursed forthwith pursuant to the adopted motion or resolution. There might be some other controlling law or rule permitting or requiring a delay, but there is no such rule in RONR. Edited to add: For more information on when a vote becomes effective, see RONR (12th ed.) Sections 4:41 - 4:48, particularly section 4:43, and also section 10:41.
  4. Agreeing with JJ, if the former board member is a member of the parent organization and if the organization or the board has a rule or custom permitting members of the organization to attend and/or address the board at board meetings, this member would have the same rights to do so as all of the other members of the organization.
  5. I think it is clear, as Mr. Honemann pointed out, that RONR does not require that observers be permitted to attend or observe the opening or counting of the ballots. Unless this organization has some rule which does permit it, I believe the tellers committee has the right to exclude the presence of observers. I have not yet seen anything indicating this organization has a rule requiring it. If such observers are permitted by virtue of a customized rule, it seems to me that a candidate himself could be his own observer unless the rule prohibits it.
  6. That is my interpretation, as well, and I agree with your answer.
  7. Guest Billy, you do still have a couple of options, but I’m not able to explain them at the moment. If no one else does, I will try to come back later with a couple of suggestions. First, tell me: do you conduct your elections at a meeting? Edited to add: Also, does your organization utilize a nominating committee? One more question: can nominations be made from the floor at the election meeting? (Note: RONR requires that nominations permitted at the election meeting unless your bylaws or special rules of order prohibit it).
  8. Is there anything In your bylaws that says officers continue to serve until their successors are elected?
  9. Yes. A motion which has failed at a meeting (session) can be renewed (made again) at any future session. There is no limit on the number of times a motion can be renewed. There is nothing wrong with waiting for a meeting at which the makeup of members present has changed so that those present are more likely to adopt the motion. There also is nothing wrong with lobbying members likely to support the motion to try to get them to attend a meeting at which you intend to try again to adopt the motion. RONR sections 8:15 and 38.
  10. Ahhh, ok. I see now. Thank you! The last six words are no longer part of the official definition. When I typed that I was actually looking at the 10th edition, which was on my desk in front of me because I had to look something up in it last night to see what a rule was in 2008. My 12th edition was in my briefcase in another room. I did not realize the definition had changed. I do now, though! I'm curious, though: What was the reason for dropping the words "at which a quorum is present"?
  11. How about if we insert the missing word “persons” before the words “ legally entitled to vote“ so that the sentence reads, “more than half of the votes cast by persons legally entitled to vote, excluding blanks or abtensions, at a regular or properly called meeting at which a quorum is present“? 🙁
  12. Yes, but it would apply to the same situation every time it occurs unless the organization amends its bylaws or adopts a special rule of order authorizing the president to name someone to preside in his place without the consent of the assembly.
  13. For of what forumula? The one you quoted? No. A majority is "more than half". Just three words . That's it. If it's votes, its 'more than half" of the votes cast, excluding abstentions, blanks, etc. RONR defines a majority vote as "more than half of the votes cast by legally entitled to vote, excluding blanks or abstentions, at a regular or properly called meeting at which a quorum is present". No complicated formulas are necessary. If it's more than half the votes cast, it's a majority. If it's exactly half or less than half, it is not a majority.
  14. I agree with the previous responses that committees normally cannot impose discipline. If you believe your committee is entitled to do so, it would have to be authorized in your bylaws. Can you quote the relevant provisions? Please quote verbatim, don't paraphrase. Edited to add: Some organizations have the word "committee" in the name. An example might be "The Committee for the Beautification of Main Street". Such organizations are not "committees" in the parliamentary sense of the word. Is that the case with your organization?
  15. I do not see where guest dbarry has posted his question as a new topic. The custom and preferred practice in this forum is to post a new question by starting a new topic rather than piggy-backing on an existing thread which is really about a technically different issue. However, since there seems to be great interest in this issue, RONR provides in Sections 43:29 and 47:11 that if the president desires to step down from the chair, and no vice presidents who are wiling to serve are present, the president, with the consent of the assembly, may nominate or appoint someone to preside. If there is no objection, the person named by the president is deemed appointed by unanimous consent. If there is an objection, then the appointment must be approve by a majority vote. Prior to the vote, other persons may be nominated. If there are other nominations, it requires a majority vote to select the president pro-tem.
  16. That’s nice, but people viewing the forum and reading posts on a smartphone do not see the notes appended to a signature. They just don’t show up. It’s as if they don’t exist.
  17. Ahh, Mr. Elsman is correct. General orders that are not reached during a session are considered unfinished business and are taken up as unfinished business at the next session, but after any item of unfinished business which was actually pending when the previous session adjourned.
  18. We really need more information in order to properly answer this question. If the proposed bylaw amendments were listed on an adopted agenda for that meeting or if they were noticed to be taken up at that meeting as is frequently the case with bylaw amendments, but the meeting was adjourned before they were reached, then they would come up automatically at the next meeting under "Unfinished Business and General Orders". Technically, they would be "general orders" and are taken up immediately after unfinished business. Any item that was pending before the assembly at the time it adjourned would be unfinished business and would be taken up prior to the general orders (items that were on the agenda for the previous meeting but not reached). See RONR sections 41:21 - 41:26 and also 21:7 (b), particularly the last sentence. Items on an adopted agenda are considered general orders. Any such items which were not reached before the previous meeting was adjourned are considered general orders and are taken up immediately after unfinished business at the next meeting.
  19. Well, I see this can get a bit deeper than I envisioned at first blush. I was thinking of an assembly, not a committee, and of regularly scheduled meetings rather than special or called meetings. I should have asked for more information before answering or provided a more detailed answer. But, seeing as how we are where we are, I actually agree that any person or group (such as a board) that has the authority to call a meeting has.... or should have.... the right to cancel said meeting. I think it should not matter whether the body which is to meet is a committee, a board, or the membership. If the meeting was called by a group such as a board calling a special meeting of the membership. the proper method of canceling the special meeting would be for the board to use the motion to rescind something previously adopted. If the meeting was called by an individual, such as the president, board chair or committee chair, that person would essentially be rescinding his own call. I am not aware of anything in RONR which would prohibit it. But, so as not to leave the original poster thinking that all meetings can be canceled, we should perhaps point out that meetings such as regularly scheduled monthly membership meetings and meetings required by the bylaws to be held on a certain date (such as an annual meeting) cannot be canceled unless the authority to cancel the meeting is provided for in the bylaws.
  20. I’m not so sure the motion or ordinance can be rescinded. A motion to rescind something previously adopted is not in order when something has been done as a result of the previous vote that it is impossible to undo. However, if part of the original motion is still unexecuted, the unexecuted part can be rescinded. For example, if the motion (or ordinance) authorized electronic billboards, rescinding the ordinance would probably have no effect on electronic billboards already constructed or permitted. However, rescinding the ordinance would prohibit future electronic billboards. Since this is a governmental entity, it is also possible that there are controlling state statutes regarding what can be done.
  21. He or she has no such authority unless it is granted in your bylaws.
  22. It should perhaps be pointed out that notes, caveats, etc automatically added to signatures by the system do not show up at all when viewing posts on a smartphone.
×
×
  • Create New...