Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Lori Lukinuk

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Lori Lukinuk

  • Rank
    CP-T, PRP
  • Birthday January 31

Profile Information

  • Location:
    Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada
  • Interests
    family, friends, educational issues, parliamentary procedure, basketball, amethyst

Recent Profile Visitors

494 profile views
  1. Thank you Daniel. That was my first instinct. I have told the individual that a member may raise a point of order if they feel the revised wording is not within the scope of the original wording.
  2. If a member gives notice of a motion at the previous meeting and then wishes to substitute different wording at the meeting where it is to be considered, can they do that before the motion is seconded and stated by the chair and without the permission of the assembly? The different wording is desired to provide clearer meaning to the motion, and is within the scope of the original noticed motion. Or ... does the original wording need to be seconded and stated then the maker can amend by substitution?
  3. I apologize for not clarifying some of the questions arising from the discussion in this thread. I have been out of town and just arrived back last night. I will not produce the exact motion so that the organization cannot be identified. It was however, "that X organization support a specific system." This motion was adopted over 15 years ago and even then was very divisive. About 7 years ago a motion to reaffirm support for the "specific system" was defeated. I believe those who brought the reaffirming motion forward were thinking it would pass and garner further support and bring the issue back into the public eye with stronger support from the organization than originally received. Once again, a very divisive motion. No one raised a point of order and the meeting ended. The issue of whether to support this "system" is still alive and well publicly and now the organization is split on what the official stance is for the organization. Some feel the original adopted motion still stands, while others feel the defeated reaffirming motion in essence rescinded the original motion.
  4. I appreciate everyone's contributions and knowledge. I trust and concur with Dan's perspective and will advise the organization accordingly. Also if Dan feels this is something that requires clarification in the 2020 edition of RONR, I'm sure he will take a look.
  5. The issue has arisen once again. This has been ongoing for many years (over 10). The organization is divided. Some believe the defeated reaffirming motion in essence overturned (rescinded) the original motion. Others believe the defeated reaffirming motion did nothing and the original motion is still in effect. Unfortunately, I don't believe RONR is clear on a solution. If the reaffirming motion was not in order in the first place, but there was no point of order at the time of the breach, does RONR say the defeated reaffirming motion still stands as does the original motion therefore creating the ambiguity? Therefore a process as you suggest Dan, of, point of order (as this issue is ongoing), ruling, and likely an appeal, would be the way to rectify the situation.
  6. Thank you Josh. I like your explanation. Guest Zen, I agree a rewrite to the RONR sentence that suggests there is ambiguity would be helpful for future clarity on this situation.
  7. lol ... I like your answer also. That's why I asked the question.đŸ˜µ I'm torn. I lean towards the original still being in effect as it has not been rescinded. Some in the organization feel the defeat of the motion to reaffirm in essence rescinded the original motion. My opinion is ... No it didn't, it is still alive and well. Unless I hear a clearer answer on this forum. My advice will be that in my opinion the motion to reaffirm was not in order and the original motion in still in effect. If someone in the organization wishes to, they can give notice of a motion to rescind the original motion which would require a majority vote to adopt at the next meeting.
  8. I agree Atul. In my opinion the original motion is still in effect. I find RONR unclear because of the statement " and if such a motion to reaffirm failed, it would create an ambiguous situation." Either the reaffirming motion is null and void, or there is an ambiguous situation. I lean towards null and void.
  9. Not sure if a discussion on a motion to reaffirm has been discussed before. I searched it and can't find what I am looking for. RONR 11th ed., states on page 104 l. 24-31 that if a motion to reaffirm failed, it would create an ambiguous situation. If this situation did happen in an organization, is the original motion still in effect and the defeated reaffirming motion null and void? or Is there an ambiguous situation where there are two conflicting motions and the situation needs to be rectified? If the former is true all is good. If the later is true, what process can the organization use to rectify the situation?
  10. Sigh... I was a school board trustee for 11 years and I was also the 1st VP of the Ontario Public School Boards Association, which helped create those guidelines with the Ontario Education Services Corporations. This is not as simple as it seems and has been an ongoing discussion around every board table in the province. I am working with a board presently on their bylaw revision. This is a question that has come up and they are looking to define it clearly. It seems to me that the Board of Trustees is the XYZ District School Board, but through legislation they only have authority over certain aspects with much of the authority given to the only person they hire which is the Director of Education. Thanks for all the comments.
  11. According to the education act in Ontario the only person the elected school board hires is the Director of Education. The elected school board is not allowed to delve into the operations of the corporate body. Interestingly the curriculum across Ontario is standardized so that every student across the province is receiving exactly the same curriculum. It is developed provincially. The Canadian school system most definitely differs from the US. Not sure, but I suspect, the Canadian corporate law does differ from the US law on the definition of a Board, at least as it pertains to school boards. Was hoping to not have to do research into the legal aspects. I likely need a Canadian parliamentarian who has expertise in the legal aspects of corporate law.
  12. My issue is that within the bylaws the term "the Board" is used repeatedly and it is often not clear whether the clause is referring to the Board as the corporation or the elected board.
  13. No they are most definitely not the same thing. To be more clear the corporate name would be XYZ District School Board (XYZDSB). This entity would encompass all employees, students, the elected school board, property. Whatever is specific to that district related to XYZDSB. The elected "Board" is the governing body that oversees student achievement and well-being, deliver of effective and sustainable educational programs, and ensures responsible stewardship of the Board’s resources. One is the corporate name, all encompassing, and the other is the governing body only.
  14. Within the bylaws of a school board, Article I - Name, it is stated that the name of the organization is XYZ School Board, hereafter referred to as the Board. This is the corporate legal name. Within that organization is the elected school board. The bylaws are specific to the elected school board and how they function. How does one differentiate within the bylaws between the Board as the corporate name and the Board as the elected Board?
  15. I've advised a board to wait until I hear an answer back on this question before they proceed. Can a board use the motion to rescind to replace a chair that they no longer like? The chair is elected each December and the board would now like to rescind that vote and elect a new chair.
  • Create New...