Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Josh Martin

Members
  • Content Count

    15,682
  • Joined

  • Last visited

7 Followers

About Josh Martin

  • Birthday 09/05/1986

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

6,040 profile views
  1. I concur with Mr. Merritt and would add that lower-level rules may not conflict with the bylaws. If the bylaws contain a procedure for admitting members, then I am inclined to think that a rule which provides a limitation on the number of members would conflict with those rules.
  2. If the resignation has already been accepted, then the resignation takes effect immediately (unless it provides otherwise) and the individual in question is no longer a board member. As a result, she would not be able to vote on anything. In the event that the resignation provides that it is not effective until a future date, then the individual would remain a board member and could vote on all matters before the board up until the resignation becomes effective, including her own replacement.
  3. For starters, the wrong motion was used. The motion which should have been used in this instance was the motion to Postpone to a Certain Time. See FAQ #12. When a motion is postponed to the next meeting, the motion becomes Unfinished Business for that meeting, and the chair should automatically state the question on that motion at the appropriate time. No motion is needed to bring the motion back before the assembly. The motion is subject to further debate. When a motion is laid on the table, a motion to Take from the Table is needed to bring it back before the assembly. The motion t
  4. So far as RONR is concerned, only members of the Executive Board have a right to view minutes of the Executive Board. If the organization has not adopted its own rules on this matter, it is entirely at the board's discretion whether the board's minutes, or some redacted version of the minutes, should be shared with members of the full association. Any procedural rules in New York state law on this matter will take precedence over RONR, but what such laws may provide is beyond the scope of this forum.
  5. If the organization wishes to adopt a rule so that only a couple of members need to be present to conduct business, then it should simply adopt a rule providing for a lower quorum requirement. What I think would be a mistake is adopting a rule where the assembly just pretends that a quorum is present, although I agree that ultimately the organization can adopt such a rule if it wishes.
  6. Conversely, the US Senate will also conduct routine business with only two members (one from each party) present, and they will not "notice" the fact that a quorum is not present. So as you say, the rules are quite "creative," and I continue to maintain that they are not advisable rules for the average assembly.
  7. Yes. I think there is already firm ground in Robert's that all reports of officers and committees, except for the very limited exceptions stated in 51:60-62, are suppose to be submitted in writing. With that said, I don't think it would hurt for an assembly to adopt its own rule on this subject.
  8. Certainly the requirement for the chairman of an assembly (unless the assembly is using the rules for committees or small boards) to maintain the appearance of impartiality is quite important, but it is not a fundamental principle of parliamentary law.
  9. The Treasurer's report, covered in detail in 48:20-26, is actually quite a bit different than the reports of other officers, given the need to report on the association's finances and for the annual report to be submitted for audit. Other officers are covered in 48:27, and I think those are pretty much the same as the reports of the President and Vice President, except that the text assumes that the other officers report less frequently. This rule applies to officers as well.
  10. I will ultimately leave it to the chair to make the call of under what circumstances it would be reasonable to conclude that a quorum is present. Factors to weigh in this determination may include, for instance, how many of the members present are generally qualified members. A Point of Order (potentially followed by an Appeal, if necessary) could be raised. Short of that, I suppose so. The chair should, of course, use reason and logic in applying this presumption. A Point of Order can be raised regarding the absence of a quorum at a prior time if there is "clear and convincing
  11. RONR does not have a clear answer to that question. My own view is that they can be replaced at any time, but it will ultimately be up to the organization to answer that question. I elaborated more on my reasoning on this question in this thread.
  12. Yes. Assuming your organization's rules grant that person the authority to appoint committees, yes. "If a single person, such as the president, has the power of appointment, he has the power to remove or replace a member so appointed." RONR (12th ed.) 13:23 Based upon the facts presented, I think it is correct that future State Regents will have the power to change the Chair of the committee. I don't think there is any way to prevent that short of amending the bylaws.
  13. I would first note that you appear to be looking at the 4th edition of RONR, which was published in 1915. This is the version which is generally available on sites such as rulesonline.com, since that text is now in the public domain. We're on the 12th edition now, so you might want to update to the current version of The Right Book. Even when looking at Section 43 of the 4th edition, however, I have no idea what language in that section you believe "makes it clear that Rule 43 applies to the language of resolutions that are the topics of debate just as much as to the debate itself."
  14. While this is certainly a bit odd, I don't think it violates anything in Robert's Rules of Order. This has far more to do with the rules of the council, and possibly also procedural rules in applicable law. I imagine this unusual procedure was followed due to various previous notice requirements for the council's actions.
×
×
  • Create New...