Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Daniel H. Honemann

Moderators
  • Content count

    6,948
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Daniel H. Honemann

  • Rank
    Fisherman

Profile Information

  • Location:
    Timonium, Maryland

Recent Profile Visitors

5,489 profile views
  1. Daniel H. Honemann

    motion to renew?

    What do you mean by "a motion to renew"? There's no motion called a "motion to renew" in RONR. But yes, if a main motion is rejected during one session, any member can make the same motion again at any later session* unless it has become absurd. Take a careful look at Section 38 in RONR (11th ed.). ---------------------------------------------- * If you meant to ask if the defeated main motion can be made again during the same session, the answer is no, although a motion to reconsider the vote by which it was defeated might be made by any member who voted against it. Take a look at Section 37 for details.
  2. Daniel H. Honemann

    Revote?

    I'd suggest that an even greater amount of context be provided, but I'm afraid that it may make matters even worse.
  3. Daniel H. Honemann

    Subcomittee on a board

    And I think you must be referring to a committee, not a subcommittee.
  4. Daniel H. Honemann

    Changes to motion after notice is given

    Yep, non-existent rules cannot affect the rights of absentees, but this truism tells us nothing at all about whether or not rules which do exist affect the rights of absentees. If (as I believe to be the case), under the rules in RONR a member who gave notice of his intent to make a motion to amend something previously adopted is permitted to make a different motion so long as it falls within the scope of the notice given, this can in no way violate the rights of absentees anymore than does the rule which allows subsidiary amendments to be made so long as they make no change going beyond the scope of the notice given. In other words, although it may be that I'm wrong (although I'm becoming more and more convinced that I'm not) and that, under the rules in RONR, a member who gave notice of his intent to make a motion to amend something previously adopted is not permitted to make a different motion even if it falls within the scope of the notice given, the rights of absentees have got nothing at all to do with it.
  5. Daniel H. Honemann

    Changes to motion after notice is given

    Notice might be given to amend Article X, "Committees", by striking out Sections 3 and 4 (which create two different committees having nothing to do with each other), and the motion actually made may be to strike out only Section 3.
  6. Daniel H. Honemann

    Changes to motion after notice is given

    Thanks for the vote of confidence, Mr. Katz. 🙂 However, I must hasten to add that there appears to be no clear-cut answer to be found in RONR, and I'm not at all prepared to say that there should be no doubt but that my take on this is the correct one.
  7. Daniel H. Honemann

    Changes to motion after notice is given

    The question asked, as I understand it, was: In cases when previous notice is required, such as for Bylaws amendments, can changes be unilaterally made after notice is given, but before the motion to amend is introduced, assuming that the changes under contemplation are within the scope of the original notice. I'm not sure how the responses which have been posted can be characterized as "2 for, 1 maybe, and 2 against", but in any event, as I indicated, I think the answer is yes. As I understand the facts provided, no attempt to withdraw the notice which was given is involved.
  8. Daniel H. Honemann

    Amend Something Previously Adopted

    As noted, a marginal notation is fine (and probably a good idea), but make no change at all in the body of the original minutes that were previously approved.
  9. Daniel H. Honemann

    Assignment of Bylaw Numbering/Ordering etc.

    If we assume that your organization's rules empower its parliamentarian to make rulings of this kind (nothing in Robert's Rules of Order grants him such power), it may well be that his ruling was reasonable. Failure to specify in a requisite notice exactly where in the bylaws a proposed new section is to be inserted may render the notice ineffective, depending, I suppose, upon the particular facts involved. Under the rules in RONR, rulings of this kind must be made by the presiding officer during a meeting, and are appealable. I don't know if your organization's rules make any provision for appealing rulings made by its parliamentarian.
  10. Daniel H. Honemann

    Assignment of Bylaw Numbering/Ordering etc.

    You submitted a new section (stating exactly what it was to say) to be inserted into the bylaws, but failed to say where?
  11. Daniel H. Honemann

    Changes to motion after notice is given

    I suppose it is conceivable that the motion as made could fall so far short of the motion for which notice was given that a subsidiary motion to amend, although within the scope of notice given, would not be germane to the motion actually made. In such an event, the desired result could be obtained by the making of a separate main motion, since such a motion would still be within the scope of the notice given.
  12. Daniel H. Honemann

    Changes to motion after notice is given

    I see no reason why a motion cannot be offered that differs from, but is within the limits of, the one for which notice was given, as Mr. McLean has suggested is the case. If this happens, any subsidiary motion to amend will be in order which is within the permissible bounds of the notice given, and not just within the bounds of the motion made. Perhaps specific examples might prove to be helpful.
  13. Daniel H. Honemann

    Point of Order Regarding Lack of Quorum at Prior Meeting

    Maybe, maybe not. For example, adoption of a motion to rescind or amend what was previously declared to have been adopted may require something more than a majority vote. Or it may well be that, although a majority may not be opposed to the motion that was declared to have been adopted, they may be convinced that there was, in fact, no quorum present when the vote was taken on it. As previously noted, much depends upon the specific facts involved.
  14. Daniel H. Honemann

    Overturn Board Decision

    I'd be inclined to state this in a different way. For example, if all members are present one might say that it will be "easier" to obtain a majority vote of the entire membership than a two-thirds vote, but, of course, a two-thirds vote, even if not a majority of the entire membership, will suffice. In other words, I think it's better to say that either one will suffice.
×