Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Josh Martin

Members
  • Content Count

    15,083
  • Joined

  • Last visited

4 Followers

About Josh Martin

  • Birthday 09/05/1986

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

5,455 profile views
  1. It is certainly permissible for the society to create a position of this nature. Whether it is wise to do so is a decision for the society to make. Creating such a position will most likely require amending the bylaws.
  2. Based upon these additional facts, it appears I was right the first time. I would add that if it is in fact correct that only the Executive Committee has the authority to act on behalf of the Board or organization, the organization may wish to review whether it wishes to amend the statement in the bylaws that "Any committee, to the extent provided in the resolution of the Board or these Bylaws, shall have all or a portion of the authority of the Board..." I suppose it may be, however, that the organization desires to continue to grant the board the flexibility to appoint a committee that
  3. As I read this closer, I agree, since the "all or a portion of the authority of the Board" language suggests the committee has "standing authority to act for the society on matters of a certain class without specific instructions from the assembly". RONR (12th ed.) 50:8
  4. Based upon these additional facts, it seems to me that the appropriate procedure to dissolve a standing committee which is not listed in the bylaws is for the board to rescind the resolution adopted to establish that committee. This assumes that the bylaws do not specify their own rules for how such committees are dissolved. The motion to Rescind requires a 2/3 vote, a vote of a majority of the entire membership (of the board, in this case), or a majority vote with previous notice for adoption.
  5. Based upon my own experience in student government, I would strongly recommend that the presiding officer of the senate should NOT do this if they wish to keep their position. I expect that inviting such intrusion from the university's administration into the Senate's affairs would not be welcomed by the Senate. I am also not certain that the university's president would, in fact, have the authority to do this. My advice is simply to hold the meeting at the appointed time. If the Senate wishes to immediately adjourn the meeting or adjourn it to a later time, it is free to do so. It c
  6. So far as I can tell, you can't cancel the meeting to begin with. We are told that the constitution provides that "The Senate may establish other meetings." Based on this, I presume that this meeting was scheduled by the Senate. If this is correct, only the Senate may cancel it unless your rules provide otherwise, which does not appear to be the case. Robert's Rules of Order doesn't have a protocol for the chair to cancel a meeting in the first place.
  7. The thread in question is found here: https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/36155-notice-of-amendment/
  8. It's a majority (more than half) of the current members of the board, not the number of positions. A majority of the remaining five members, which is three.
  9. Yes. "Rules protecting absentees cannot be suspended, even by unanimous consent or an actual unanimous vote, because the absentees do not consent to such suspension. For example, the rules requiring the presence of a quorum, restricting business transacted at a special meeting to that mentioned in the call of the meeting, and requiring previous notice of a proposed amendment to the bylaws protect absentees, if there are any, and cannot be suspended when any member is absent." RONR (12th ed.) 25:10 We are told in this instance that, at the time the rule was suspended, there were no ab
  10. So firstly, this seems to be rather circular logic. So far as I can tell, your argument is: 1) The bylaw requirement cannot be suspended. (See 2.) Therefore, it is not a rule of order. 2) The bylaw requirement is not a rule of order. (See 1.) Therefore, it cannot be suspended. Additionally, the statement "The fact that it cannot be suspended means it is not a rule of order" is false. Not all rules which are rules of order can be suspended, and not all rules which are not rules of order cannot be suspended. For instance, rules which protect absentees, the basic right of an i
  11. No rule in RONR prohibits it, and neither does any rule in RONR. If the society views it as a problem to have the same person serve as President and Treasurer, then elect someone else to one of those offices.
  12. Yes, you can. A rule in the bylaws which is in the nature of a rule of order may be suspended. A rule pertaining to a voting threshold is in the nature of a rule of order. There is no point in suspending such rules, however, since if you have the votes to suspend the rule, you also have the votes to amend the bylaws (or prevent their amendment). "2. Can be applied to any rule of the assembly except bylaws (or rules contained in a constitution or corporate charter)." RONR (12th ed.) 25:1 This sentence has a footnote, however, and that footnote refers back to another rule.
  13. A board can choose whether or not to use the small board rules, and I even think that a board could choose to use some, but not all, of the small board rules. I do not think, however, that the board can choose to be in a quantum state where the small board rules are or are not in effect at any given time depending on the board's whims. With respect to the rule "regarding limiting the number of times a director may speak to a motion," however, I would note that the motion to Limit or Extend Limits of Debate would be useful for this purpose. This motion requires a 2/3 vote for adoption.
  14. Robert's Rules recommends that the bylaws themselves specify the requirements for their amendment. In the case they they are silent, they may be amended by a 2/3 vote with previous notice or by a vote of a majority of the entire membership. For the 2/3 vote with previous notice, this is 2/3 of the members present and voting.
  15. There is certainly no doubt that this situation was handled extremely poorly. So far as I can tell, what ultimately happened is that the actual vote for the election was conducted by ballot, and apparently no votes were cast for you in that vote. If this is correct, then I think you are owed an apology for being given extremely poor information regarding what was happening (perhaps intentionally so), but the fact remains that a person who receives zero votes in the election is not elected. Apparently, at some point a motion was made for only board members to vote on whether they want
×
×
  • Create New...