Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Josh Martin

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Josh Martin

  • Birthday 09/05/1986

Profile Information

  • Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
  • Interests
    reading, writing, video games, parliamentary procedure

Recent Profile Visitors

6,247 profile views
  1. Then it seems to me the President may withdraw his resignation. FAQ #18 Is it possible to withdraw a resignation after it has been submitted? A resignation is a Request to Be Excused from a Duty. It may be withdrawn in the same manner as any motion may be withdrawn—that is to say, before the proposed resignation has been placed before the assembly by the chair stating the question on its acceptance, it may be withdrawn without the consent of the assembly, but it may not be withdrawn without permission of the assembly once it has been placed before the assembly for its approval.
  2. Did the board take action to accept the President's resignation?
  3. The standard order of business is discussed in RONR (12th ed.) 41:5-36, if that is what you are asking. If your question is simply what constitutes a meeting being held, a call to order and adjournment will do the trick, although a meeting usually includes more than that, unless there are unusual circumstances (such as a quorum not being present).
  4. You don't have to worry about Ch. XX anymore. Your bylaws have their own rules for discipline, so you have to follow those rules. Yes, unless something in your organization's rules or applicable law provide otherwise. "Isn't it true that a member who has a conflict of interest with respect to a motion cannot vote on the motion? Under the rules in RONR, no member can be compelled to refrain from voting simply because it is perceived that he or she may have some “conflict of interest” with respect to the motion under consideration. If a member has a direct personal or pecuniary
  5. Okay, so it appears that the bylaws are not, in fact, silent regarding discipline as was previously stated. Based upon these facts, the rules described in the sections you have quoted are the rules which must be followed, since those rules will take precedence over the rules in RONR. It is ultimately up to the organization to interpret its own rules, but my own reading of it is as follows: Yes, although the President should not do so. Yes, although the President should not do so. The Treasurer should not vote on charges or motions to suspend the Treasurer, but ulti
  7. This is generally correct, and I would add that for similar reasons, the President should not preside over disciplinary proceedings against the President, so that further resolves the issue of concerns regarding the chair voting. I would add that in the event that the bylaws are entirely silent on discipline and the rules in RONR are controlling, those rules provide that the accused must leave the room at the conclusion of the trial, for the assembly's determination of guilt and the penalty. As a result, the accused will not be able to vote on the question of guilt or the penalty. Further
  8. That makes sense. I didn't think of that part. Yes, two separate motions is certainly the simplest solution (and seems like it may be the only solution). Theoretically, both could be made in the same meeting (unless there is some other rule of your society on this subject I am unaware of). Since it appears the rule will be rescinded/amended at a special meeting, however, that complicates things. All items to be considered at a special meeting must be included in the call of the meeting. I don't know whether there is still sufficient time prior to the special meeting to send a
  9. What exactly do your bylaws say about removing a board member? Nothing whatsoever, or does it include something and it just isn't very detailed? If the latter, what do they say? That will affect the proper procedures in this matter. In regard to the President voting, the President (if a member) has the right to vote on all matters unless your bylaws provide otherwise, especially in a small board. RONR provides that in larger assemblies, the chair refrains from voting except when their vote would affect the result. Even under those rules, the chair could vote to create a tie.
  10. Certainly nothing can be done which will change history and make it so that John Doe has been pastor since July 25. I suppose it would be possible to adopt a rule such that John Doe will immediately become the pastor upon the adoption of this rule, without the need to take another vote on the matter. This certainly will not be the case unless the rule specifies something to this effect. I see no reason why the organization could not adopt such a rule, although I don't think it would be wise to do so. It would seem simpler to just take a new vote for the position.
  11. The amount of notice required should be specified in the bylaws. If the bylaws do not provide for special meetings, then special meetings cannot be held. If the bylaws provide for special meetings but fail to specify the amount of notice required, RONR only provides that the notice must be sent a reasonable amount of time in advance. What exactly constitutes a reasonable amount of time in advance will vary from organization to organization. The bylaws should be amended as soon as possible to clarify this matter. As for the means of sending the notice, RONR requires notice by postal mail u
  12. If a member says "I move to keep the officer on the board," then the chair should rule this motion out of order and note that a motion to remove the officer is in order. If the question on the motion is nonetheless incorrectly stated in this manner, this does not mean that the provision in the bylaws which requires a 2/3 vote to remove an officer magically transforms into a requirement for a 2/3 vote to keep the officer. It is certainly not reasonable to conclude that the officer is now removed unless there is a 2/3 vote to keep him. What exactly should happen instead is not entirely
  13. You are correct and the chair is incorrect. The examples provided in 57:11 and 57:12 are just that - examples. The concept of scope of notice is not limited to monetary matters. Monetary examples are used because numbers provide an easy way to illustrate the concept. As to the specific issue, I agree that if the original proposed amendment made no change whatsoever to the percentage in the rule, then an amendment which changed this percentage certainly exceeded the scope of notice.
  14. Again, I don't think we can definitively answer this without knowing more facts. Depending on how the start time for the meeting was originally set, who exactly is attempting to change the start time of the meeting, how long it is before the meeting, what (if anything) the organization's rules say on this matter, etc., it is possible that the time could be changed and that members could be notified of the new starting time for the meeting.
  15. Committees generally have no need for such extensive governing documents, but to the extent the committee wishes to adopt such documents (or the parent assembly wishes for the committee to do so), yes, approval by the parent assembly would be required.
  • Create New...