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

3,290 profile views
  1. In my view, no new notice is required in any event. If the motion is carried over, through postponement or otherwise, to an adjourned meeting or the next regular meeting (within a quarterly interval), then I certainly think it is clear that no additional notice is required. I think it is an interesting question as to what happens in the event that no adjourned meeting is scheduled and the next regular meeting is not within a quarterly interval. As you note, in the ordinary case, a motion which is pending in such cases “falls to the ground” and dies upon adjournment of the session, in which event the motion must be made anew, and therefore any required notice must be given again. I am inclined to think, however, that an item which automatically becomes an order of the day due to a requirement in the bylaws (as opposed to the making of a motion) cannot “fall to the ground” in this manner, although I acknowledge that RONR does not directly address this question. Nonetheless, I certainly think it would be a good idea to provide notice of the completion of an incomplete election in any case, and especially if it will not occur for some time. Just the remaining four. I do not think 30 days of notice is required, but it wouldn’t hurt.
  2. Josh Martin

    Scope of Committee Recommendations

    No, you can’t. You can make requests which are in order at that time. No, the worst that can happen is for the chair to rule your motion out of order. It is prohibited for a committee to make a recommendation outside the scope of its charge (which may be the case here), and it is also prohibited for a committee to make a recommendation on a matter which is currently under the control of another committee (both of which are the case here). I suppose that a motion to Suspend the Rules would be sufficient, as it does not seem to me that any of these rules are unsuspendable, but the chairman of another committee may not simply request to make a report on a matter referred to another committee, especially while the report of the other committee is pending. Committees are not free agents. They act only under the instructions and authority granted by the parent assembly or the society’s rules. Individual members of the committee (if they are also members of the assembly) are free to act as they wish, but committees cannot do whatever they please. If the society has instructed Committee A to investigate and report on this matter, it is not proper for Committee B to report on it, especially when it is not time for Committee B’s report. Actually, I think the business at hand is the report of Committee A on the subjects assigned to it.
  3. Josh Martin

    Scope of Committee Recommendations

    No, I disagree that the Chairman of a committee may request to submit “a form of minority report” regarding the report of a different committee. There is no provision in RONR for such an action. It is of course correct that the individual members of Committee B (including the chairman) may speak in debate and offer amendments. If the committee wishes to report on the matter as a committee, a member of Committee B could move to refer the motion to the committee.
  4. The chair may order the nonmember to be removed on his own if he is disruptive (subject to appeal) or if, by rule or custom, the board’s meetings are open only to members of the board. Otherwise, the board may order the nonmember to be removed, by majority vote. It should also be noted that, unless your rules otherwise, the situation would be the same even if this person had an invitation from the chair.
  5. “The power to appoint or elect persons to any office or board carries with it the power to accept their resignations, and also the power to fill any vacancy occurring in it, unless the bylaws expressly provide otherwise. In the case of a society whose bylaws confer upon its executive board full power and authority over the society's affairs between meetings of the society's assembly (as in the example on p. 578, ll. 11–15) without reserving to the society itself the exclusive right to fill vacancies, the executive board is empowered to accept resignations and fill vacancies between meetings of the society's assembly.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 467) So if your bylaws grant the board “full power and authority over the society’s affairs between meetings of the society’s assembly,” then the board may fill the vacancy. If not, the vacancy is filled by the same body which elected the position in the first place.
  6. Josh Martin

    Conflict of interest

    Well, RONR already provides the following: “Whenever a motion is made that refers only to the presiding officer in a capacity not shared in common with other members, or that commends or censures him with others, he should turn the chair over to the vice-president or appropriate temporary occupant (see below) during the assembly's consideration of that motion, just as he would in a case where he wishes to take part in debate (see also pp. 394–95).” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 451) This would seem to cover the most egregious conflicts, such as if the Vice President himself is the subject of the hearing. Additionally, the assembly has the power to suspend the rules (by a 2/3 vote) to remove the presiding officer for up to the duration of the current meeting, so if it is believed that the Vice President has a “conflict of interest” which will infringe upon his ability to maintain the appearance of impartiality required to effectively preside, and the VP does not willingly step aside, the assembly may exercise this power. So no, I do not think it needs to be explicitly stated. If the society wishes to add “conflict of interest” rules for such matters, however, it is free to do so. If this is done, it may be beneficial to either define a “conflict of interest” and/or to define who ultimately determines whether such a conflict exists.
  7. Josh Martin

    Our POA fall annual meeting.

    I did mean to say “by their rules.”
  8. Josh Martin

    Our POA fall annual meeting.

    The meeting is for the POA. The board lacks the power to take the actions in question, unless such power is granted to the board by our their rules or applicable law. EDIT: Pronoun fix.
  9. Josh Martin

    Improper motion

    Not really, since if the society has its own rules on removal (which it does), FAQ #20 just says to follow those rules. It is up to your organization to interpret its own bylaws, and questions about applicable law should be directed to a lawyer. It may be that these rules permit multiple directors (even all of them) to be removed by a single “special resolution,” or it may be that a separate special resolution is required for each director. I have no idea - this forum is for answering questions about RONR, not the BC Society Act or your society’s constitution.
  10. Josh Martin

    Who can vote, based on quorum?

    Apparently, the bylaws state that only “active members,” whatever that means, are able to vote. So while it may well be that members may vote whether or not they are collegiate members, they must at least be “active” members. It is, however, entirely possible to have members who are able to vote yet do not count toward the quorum. RONR provides, for instance, that if the President is an ex officio member of all committees, or if an ex officio member is not under the control of the society, those persons have the right to vote, but do not count toward the quorum. So the fact that certain members do not count toward the quorum, in and of itself, does not necessarily mean that those members may not vote. Additionally, so far as RONR is concerned, all members have the right to vote.
  11. Josh Martin

    Request for vote by ballot

    Yes, the reference to a “delegate” was why I suspected it might be a convention.
  12. Josh Martin

    Request for vote by ballot

    I would first check whether your bylaws say anything on this matter. It is quite common for the bylaws to provide that the election of officers shall be by ballot vote. If this is the case, a ballot vote is required whether or not a delegate requests it. Since this appears to be a convention, it may be prudent to check the convention standing rules as well. If your rules are silent on this subject, I concur with Dr. Stackpole, although I would note that RONR still recommends a ballot vote for the election of officers (unless a candidate is running unopposed).
  13. We don’t yet know whether the committee is authorized to meet via Skype. If it is, yes, the normal rule of majority vote would apply. If the committee is not authorized to meet in this manner, then a video conference via Skype is not a meeting of the committee, and therefore, the report could only include what has been agreed to by every one of the committee’s members.
  14. Since this is a committee, a lower-level rule may be sufficient, depending on how the committee was established. “As in the case of a board or any assembly, committees that are expressly established by the bylaws can hold a valid electronic meeting only if authorized in the bylaws to do so. A committee that is not expressly established by the bylaws, however, may instead be authorized by a standing rule of the parent body or organization, or by the motion establishing the particular committee, to hold electronic meetings.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 98)