Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Dan Honemann

Moderators
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    10,365

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Dan Honemann

  1. Dan Honemann
    There is no such limitation in Robert's Rules of Order.
  2. Dan Honemann
    Then why don't you buy a copy of the current edition? You should have done so a long time ago.
  3. Dan Honemann
    Why are you in desperate need for a new edition? What's the matter with the current one?
  4. Dan Honemann
    Yes.
  5. Dan Honemann
    It isn't that I felt that you had somehow dismissed what I had posted, but rather that you may have misunderstood it. It's this comment of yours that concerned me: "I must confess to you that after seeing Mr. H's answer and reading several threads, I came away with the exact opposite impression. That is, that the notice requirement could not be disregarded even if the entire membership was present because the requirement was established in the bylaws and no provision for its own suspension existed."
  6. Dan Honemann
    I'm puzzled by all this confusion. This is what I said in my second post: "A bylaw requirement for previous notice and a bylaw requirement of a two-thirds vote are both rules in the nature of rules of order. The former is a rule protecting absentees, and therefore it may not be suspended if there are any absentees to protect, but nothing in RONR indicates that a rule requiring a two-thirds vote may not be suspended."
  7. Dan Honemann
    Well, it's too late to worry about it now. The deed has been done.
  8. Dan Honemann
    If by "how would a conflicting special rule adopted by the general membership be resolved?" you mean to ask if the rule adopted by the membership's assembly will take precedence, you will need to look to the bylaws for your answer. "Except in matters placed by the bylaws exclusively under the control of the board, the society's assembly can give the board instructions which it must carry out, and can rescind or amend any action of the board if it is not too late ...." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 483, emphasis supplied)
  9. Dan Honemann
    In answer to your first question, when I said that I assume that "resolutions" means main motions, I meant incidental main motions as well as original main motions. I really don't understand what it is that you mean by the rest of what you have posted. I'm afraid it makes no sense to me.
  10. Dan Honemann
    Well, at the very least I assume that "resolutions" means main motions.
  11. Dan Honemann
    The answer to your question is "no", rules cannot be deliberately violated without adverse consequences whenever anything of any consequence is involved.
  12. Dan Honemann
    I'm unwilling to express any further opinion without seeing the exact language of everything in the bylaws relating to this requirement of notice for resolutions and also for amendment of the bylaws.
  13. Dan Honemann
    What happens fairly often (we've seen it reported many times in this forum) is that a presiding officer, mistakenly thinking that only a majority vote is required, announces that a motion requiring a two-thirds vote has been adopted by a majority vote (one that is less than a two-thirds vote). No point of order is raised, and the meeting is adjourned. The error is noticed sometime later but it is then to late to raise a point of order concerning the matter since violation of the rule requiring a two-thirds vote does not give rise to a continuing breach.
  14. Dan Honemann
    I respectfully disagree with the last sentence. A bylaw requirement for previous notice and a bylaw requirement of a two-thirds vote are both rules in the nature of rules of order. The former is a rule protecting absentees, and therefore it may not be suspended if there are any absentees to protect, but nothing in RONR indicates that a rule requiring a two-thirds vote may not be suspended.
  15. Dan Honemann
    A motion to amend the bylaws may or may not be made in the form of a resolution (a resolution is simply a fancy form of motion, see RONR, 11th ed., pp. 104-109). As a consequence, one would hope that there is something more in the bylaws other than what has been posted which will shed some light on this. Based solely on what has been posted: 1. Is the amendment a resolution? Maybe yes, maybe no. The answer depends upon how the motion to amend the bylaws is worded. 2. Can notice be suspended? No. 3. Is amending the bylaws a more specific form of 'resolution' ...? Maybe yes, maybe no (see 1 above).
  16. Dan Honemann
    There is no rule in RONR addressing this sort of question, and if it legitimately arises during a meeting of a deliberative assembly, that assembly will have to decide it. At least that assembly will have the benefit of knowing the context in which these words were uttered. The rule in RONR is as follows: "Debate must be confined to the merits of the pending question. Speakers must address their remarks to the chair, maintain a courteous tone, and—especially in reference to any divergence of opinion—should avoid injecting a personal note into debate. To this end, they must never attack or make any allusion to the motives of members."
  17. Dan Honemann
    Well, that sentence on page 486 is referring to offenses occurring during a board meeting, but there should be no doubt but that the executive board of an ordinary society cannot expel a member unless the bylaws very clearly grant it that authority.
  18. Dan Honemann
    Nothing in RONR gives a board any sort of veto power over the election of new board members by an organization's membership.
  19. Dan Honemann
    I agree with Mr. Martin, although I think the answer will be different in the case of a committee created by a motion adopted by the membership's assembly.
  20. Dan Honemann
    J.J., I'm afraid that this discussion has already been allowed to wander too far afield. If you want to raise additional questions, I suggest you start your own thread.
  21. Dan Honemann
    Yes it is; I've already said as much. The sentence on page 486, lines 17-19 , means exactly what it says.
  22. Dan Honemann
    Such a special rule of order obviously conflicts with the rule in RONR found on page 132, lines 12-17.
  23. Dan Honemann
    No, it is not correct. A special rule of order such as the one which you have quoted above does not conflict with any of the rules in RONR.
  24. Dan Honemann
    This question was asked by the OP: "Can a board make a special rule of order or implement a rule on an agreement of some kind that says that a member can never bring up a past decision for reconsideration?" Some subsequent responses seem to question the correctness of this response by Mr. Martin, but they shouldn't have.
  25. Dan Honemann
    These appointments do not need to be ratified unless the bylaws say that they must.
×
×
  • Create New...