Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Daniel H. Honemann

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Daniel H. Honemann

Profile Information

  • Location:
    Timonium, Maryland

Recent Profile Visitors

7,601 profile views
  1. On May 5, 2020, Mr. A, on behalf of the association, executes a contract with third parties which depends for its validity upon Mr. A being president of the association when he executed the contract in its behalf. If these third parties, who no longer wish to be bound by the contract, learn that Mr. A was not, in fact, president of the association on May 5, 2020, I can assure you that the association, by amending its bylaws in November of 2020 by inserting "Mr. A shall be elected as president of this organization beginning on May 1, 2020 and extending to April 30, 2022", is not going to succe
  2. The assembly could amend its bylaws to say this, but by doing so it will not make valid anything that depends for its validity upon Mr. A being president on May 5, 2020.
  3. You still have not provided an exact statement of facts. You say that a bylaw amendment "can authorize something (anything) that has happened", but the fact is that it cannot make valid something that is dependent for its validity upon something having happened on January 1, 2020, that did not happen on January 1, 2020.
  4. Let's don't play games. We all know that an amendment to bylaws on February 1, 2020, cannot make something happen on January 1, 2020, that did not happen on January 1, 2020, and so everything depends on exactly what set of facts you are referring to.
  5. Nothing in Robert's Rules of Order gives you this right. How many candidates are there for the office of Executive Director? How have you been conducting this election?
  6. Let me expand a bit on this response of mine. The motion to suspend the rules, as described here by Shmuel Gerber, is a motion to suspend, for the remainder of the session, a bylaws created quorum rule, and as I have said, I have no problem with this. It should be noted, however, that in this instance the motion to suspend the rules does not attempt to create its own quorum requirement; it simply reinstates the quorum requirement that is in effect unless the bylaws create a different one (3:3, 40:2). In the factual situation originally presented by J. J., the motion to suspend the r
  7. No, they do not have a valid claim because the number required for the presence of a quorum had been validly and effectively reduced from 15 to 11 by the passage of the motion "to suspend the rules for the remainder of the meeting and establish the quorum of a majority of the entire membership." I am not aware of any rule that would have prevented the adoption of this motion to suspend the rules for the remainder of the session. Shucks, they very likely could have amended their bylaws had they wanted to go that far (for example, if their bylaws provide that they can be amended by previ
  8. As Mr. Brown has said Paul, it's time for you to give this up. No one who has the foggiest idea about what he is talking about will agree with you.
  9. A suggestion was made that such a motion to suspend the rules would be dilatory if the suspension lasted only until a member departed. This was an argument advanced by Dr. Kapur who is clearly of the opinion that, in the situation as originally described by you, the motion to suspend the rules was validly adopted. Things getting mixed up like this is one of the reasons why it's time to quit.
  10. Well, now that it has been firmly established for the benefit of all PRP's, CPP's, and others who seriously worry about such things, that the assembly of a society with an enrolled membership, that has adopted RONR in its bylaws, and that has not established a quorum for its meetings in its bylaws, can, at one of its regular meetings when 100% of its members are present, validly adopt by a two-thirds vote a main motion (made at a time when nothing else is pending) "to suspend the rules for the remainder of the meeting and establish the quorum of one-third", perhaps we can safely conclude this
  11. Actions taken at anything other than a regular or properly called meeting cannot be ratified, but actions taken by officers or others to carry out decisions made without a valid meeting can be ratified.
  12. I'm afraid it is not at all clear, based upon the few facts that have been posted, that this referral to a committee was improperly done. Additional facts as to what exactly happened at this meeting would be helpful.
  13. There is also an issue here as to whether or not what has been done as a result of the vote taken in July is something that is impossible to undo.
  • Create New...