Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Dan Honemann

Moderators
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    10,366

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Dan Honemann

  1. Dan Honemann
    Based upon what little facts we have, it would appear that the committee could recommend the adoption of two separate and distinct bylaw amendments which do not conflict with one another in any respect. One would be to add a bylaw provision imposing a certain amount of dues on one of the two classes of membership, and the other to add a bylaw provision imposing a certain amount of dues on the other class.
  2. Dan Honemann
    This topic has been languishing for over a month, so just for the fun of it I'll suggest that there may be a problem with the first three suggested options. As I understand them, in each instance two different bylaw amendments will be proposed, with notice being given for each, and that while the first one of these two to be moved is pending a motion will be made to substitute the other one for it. If so, it appears that these options may run afoul of what is said on page 593, line 35 to page 594, line 10, as to the procedure to be followed in such instances.
  3. Dan Honemann
    I think you need to read FAQ #10 again.
  4. Dan Honemann
    You're painting with a very broad brush, but I think it's safe to say that the answer to all of these questions is "no", no further notice is required if the election to fill the resulting vacancy is held (or, at least, commenced) before the end of the session at which the election took place. This is because all members were on notice that an election would be held during this session to choose someone to fill the office involved.
  5. Dan Honemann
    Surely you jest.
  6. Dan Honemann
    Yes, your FAC may propose the adoption of a number of charter amendments in a single motion (RONR, 11th ed. p. 110, ll. 9-31), and depending upon the relationship of these proposed amendments to one another, this motion may or may not be divisible. If the proposed amendments are independent of one another, they will have to be divided upon the demand of just one member. If you are serving as parliamentarian, I suggest you read Section 27 in RONR (11th ed.) very carefully.
  7. Dan Honemann
    Back to Parliamentary Law 101. When an assembly votes on a motion it is deciding whether it will or will not do what the motion proposes, and if an assembly rejects a motion it has decided not to do whatever it was that the motion proposed be done. RONR puts it this way (11th ed., p. 32, ll. 31-34): "If the assembly decides to do what a motion proposes, it adopts the motion, or the motion is carried; if the assembly expressly decides against doing what the motion proposes, the motion is lost, or rejected." I can assure you that RONR Official Interpretation 2006-12 remains correct in all material respects. It may be of interest to note, however, that back in the days of the 10th Edition, our task was to convince doubters that the phrase "any action taken" on page 466, line 8, meant "any decision made", and so in the 11th Edition reference is now made to "any decision made" instead of "any action taken" (p. 483, l. 7). Frankly, it never occurred to me that anyone would doubt that rejection of a motion is a decision made.
  8. Dan Honemann
    Your problem seems to be with the fact that a tie vote defeats a motion. I'm afraid I can't help you with that.
  9. Dan Honemann
    Have you looked at what is said in RONR (11th ed.) on pages 135-136 re degrees of amendment?
  10. Dan Honemann
    Referring to the portion of this response which I have put in bold print, there should be no doubt but that defeating a motion constitutes a decision not to do what the motion proposes be done, and prevents a subordinate board from taking any action which alters or conflicts with that decision.
  11. Dan Honemann
    Suppose we try to cut to the chase. The answer to the question initially asked is "yes". The sentence on page 581, lines 24-29 (RONR, 11th ed.) makes that abundantly clear. What I do not as yet understand is why Mr. Goldsworthy finds this so remarkable, or some sort of significant departure from what is said on pages 121-124 as to how previous notice can be given. If an assembly adopts a motion appointing a committee to draft a proposed revision of its bylaws and instructing it to report at a specified meeting, the assembly has given itself oral notice of its intent that such a motion be introduced at the designated meeting. It's as simple as that.
  12. Dan Honemann
    Mr. Goldsworthy, I used the word "creating" instead of "appointing" in my response simply because "creating" is the word you had used when you said that "The act of creating a bylaw revision committee is itself the act of giving notice, per page 581", and I said no, it is not itself the act of giving notice. If it helps you to avoid missing the point, just substitute the word "appointing" for "creating" in my previous response. I believe that, if you think about it, you will agree that (as I said) the mere act of appointing a bylaws committee does not, in and of itself, constitute the act of giving notice of anything at all except the fact that a committee has been appointed. In order for such an appointment to constitute notice, the bylaws must require only previous notice of an amendment, with no limitation of the period within which it must be acted upon, and the committee which is appointed must be ordered by the assembly to report at a specified meeting. All three requirements are essential elements.
  13. Dan Honemann
    Nonsense.
  14. Dan Honemann
    Well, at least you're getting a wee bit closer to making some sense.
  15. Dan Honemann
    Congratulations.
  16. Dan Honemann
    Mr. Goldsworthy, nothing on page 581 (or anywhere else) indicates that the act of creating a bylaws committee in and of itself constitutes the act of giving notice of anything at all except the fact that a committee has been created. When you post things such as "When page 581 is exercised by an organization" and "actions invoking page 581", it becomes evident that you yourself have no idea as to exactly what you're referring to. As stated on page 581, if "the bylaws require only previous notice of an amendment without limitation of the period within which it must be acted upon, and a committee is appointed to revise the bylaws and report at a specified meeting, the appointing action is all the notice required". Every part of what is quoted is significant, and is essential to understanding what is being said.
  17. Dan Honemann
    Negative motions are discussed on pages 104-105 of RONR, 11th ed., where it is noted that they should not be offered if the same result can be accomplished by offering no motion at all, "unless some purpose would be served by adoption of such a motion. This could be the case, for example, if the membership of an organization wishes to make certain that a subordinate body, such as its executive board, will not take such action at a later date, or if the motion expresses an opinion or reason as to why no action should be taken." Main motions that are actually not in order are listed on pages 110-113, and negatively worded motions are not among them.
  18. Dan Honemann
    "... when the term majority vote is used without qualification—as in the case of the basic requirement—it means more than half of the votes cast by persons entitled to vote, excluding blanks or abstentions, at a regular or properly called meeting." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 400) A "vote of a majority of the members present" means exactly what it says - the vote of more than half of the members present. "Voting requirements based on the number of members present—a majority of those present, two thirds of those present, etc.—while possible, are generally undesirable. Since an abstention in such cases has the same effect as a negative vote, these bases deny members the right to maintain a neutral position by abstaining. For the same reason, members present who fail to vote through indifference rather than through deliberate neutrality may affect the result negatively." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 403) You really ought to get yourself a copy of the current edition of RONR, and read Section 44 in its entirety. You'll learn a lot.
  19. Dan Honemann
    The phrase "majority vote of the members present" is inherently ambiguous, and so your organization will need to determine for itself what its bylaws mean in this regard. It may mean a "majority vote" or it may mean the "vote of a majority of the members present". In any event, it would be a good idea to amend your bylaws in order to remove the ambiguity.
  20. Dan Honemann
    This is all rather confused, but interesting. Sarah Corbin Robert was, in her day, the preeminent parliamentarian in America, and she was fully familiar with the views of General Robert and his plans for future editions of Robert's Rules of Order. However, I suppose "Guest Zev" is entitled to express his (her?) opinion, although I notice that he bravely does so anonymously.
  21. Dan Honemann
    No, the act of creating a bylaws revision committee is not itself the act of giving notice. However, I will agree that (as indicated on p. 581), if "the bylaws require only previous notice of an amendment without limitation of the period within which it must be acted upon, and a committee is appointed to revise the bylaws and report at a specified meeting, the appointing action is all the notice required". Well, won't that come as quite a shock!
  22. Dan Honemann
    The reference on page 581, lines 24-29, is to a committee authorized to propose a revision of the bylaws (as described on p. 593, ll. 16-31), and so that sentence above it, on lines 15-18, has no applicability.
  23. Dan Honemann
    It isn't an absurd interpretation of the rule in RONR because it isn't an interpretation. The rule itself is quite unambiguous in this regard. I suggest you read it.
  24. Dan Honemann
    "If the bylaws require only previous notice of an amendment without limitation of the period within which it must be acted upon, and a committee is appointed to revise the bylaws and report at a specified meeting, the appointing action is all the notice required, and the amendments can be immediately acted upon at the time the committee reports." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 581)
  25. Dan Honemann
    Oh, that statement of mine is entirely correct. The kind of notice that affects the vote required for the adoption of certain motions (such as the motion to Rescind) is notice of an intent to make it, and such notice can be given only before, and not after, the motion has been made.
×
×
  • Create New...