Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Josh Martin

Members
  • Content Count

    15,375
  • Joined

  • Last visited

5 Followers

About Josh Martin

  • Birthday 09/05/1986

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

5,792 profile views
  1. Okay, but how does the membership remove him? I have no disagreement with that.
  2. Why would a Point of Order be appropriate? What rule was violated by not including the member's comments? Amend something previously adopted is the correct motion to amend approved minutes, as noted in FAQ #16.
  3. So far as RONR is concerned, the minutes shouldn't be amended to include the statement in any event, but I certainly agree that if the statement never actually happened, that is even more reason not to amend the minutes to include it. The minutes are intended to be a record of what was done, not what was said, and they certainly are not intended to be a record of things people wish they had said.
  4. I would first note that any questions regarding what protection such a statement might provide against future legal liability, or whether there is any legal principle suggesting that such statements should or must be included, should be directed to an attorney. As to the question of whether it is possible to make such a motion, yes. You would make a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted. Assuming this motion is adopted, "the secretary does not actually alter the content of the original minutes, but may make a marginal notation indicating the corrected text or referring to the minut
  5. They could remove the Commander and replace the Commander with someone who is willing to remove this person or they could amend the bylaws. I am doubtful that it will be in order to remove the Commander prior to the expiration of the Commander's term, however, based upon the wording in the bylaws which provides for a fixed term. RONR is quite clear that elected officers who serve a fixed term (with no "or until their successors are elected" clause) may be removed only for cause - that is, misconduct or neglect of duty in office, and there does not seem to be any allegation that the appoin
  6. What basis is there in parliamentary law for "mixing and matching" provisions from the bylaws (especially when those provisions apply to the board, not the membership) with provisions in RONR? What statement in RONR do you think supports this position? I feel sympathetic to the view that there should be a mechanism for the members to remove a board member, but my own view is that the society's bylaws as they are presently written do not provide such a mechanism, and that the society will need to amend the bylaws to provide one if that is what the society wishes. I am not aware of any prin
  7. I certainly do not think the differences between the rules in RONR and the rules in the bylaws are so minor as to be "moot," and there are also two different processes in RONR and we don't know which one would apply, so I don't know how you are so certain what differences there are. I agree that the distinction between board members and officers is not particularly troubling, since board members are officers so far as RONR is concerned. The rules in RONR on this subject are that: If the bylaws provide that officers serve for a fixed term or provide that officers serve "and until the
  8. I would view the rules on this matter as exclusive. In your view, however, what procedures should be followed for the members to remove the chairman? Should the members follow the same procedures as in the rule in the bylaws for the board removing the board member, even though the rule makes no mention of the membership? Or would the rules default back to the rules in RONR? If the latter, we would need to know what the bylaws say about the term of office.
  9. So I would first note that it isn't actually clear to me that COVID-19 will make it more difficult for members to comply with this rule. It might make it easier. If the organization's rules provide for meetings to be held by electronic means, for example, it will be easier for members to attend them. If the society currently does not have any activities outside of meetings, then it will be rather easy to attend 50% of zero activities. In any event, RONR is quite clear that simply ignoring rules in the bylaws is not an option. "Rules contained in the bylaws (or constitution) cannot be
  10. My first recommendation would be to check your bylaws to see if they say how these officers are removed. If so, you have your answer. If not, it might be wise to amend the bylaws to provide an answer. In the interim, RONR says quite clearly that for elected officers, a person who is elected to a fixed term can be removed only through formal disciplinary procedures. "Except as the bylaws may provide otherwise, any regularly elected officer of a permanent society can be removed from office by the society’s assembly as follows: ... If, however, the bylaws provide that officers
  11. I agree with your analysis. We are told that the desire is to remove the chairman "from the board." This presumably means that the chairman is currently a member of the board, and therefore, to remove him from the board is to remove a board member. The rules in your bylaws pertaining to the removal of board members take precedence over RONR's rules on this subject, and those rules provide that board members are removed by the board. So if the membership wishes to remove a board member prior to the end of the member's term, it will be necessary for the membership to first amend the bylaws
  12. Yes, that is correct. It is my personal opinion that it is generally preferable to wait until the date the officers are to assume office, but I do not believe that the assembly is required to do so.
  13. That is not my view, I was just trying to clarify your position. As I understand the rules in RONR, a resignation is a particular form of a Request to be Excused from a Duty. It would seem to me that, through accepting the election, the member has accepted the duty of serving in that office, and that a member may request to be excused from that duty prior to the duty actually beginning. "If a member who has accepted an office, committee assignment, or other duty finds that he is unable to perform it, he should submit his resignation. A resignation is submitted in writing, addressed t
  14. So if the bylaws provide that officers do not take office until a certain date, if a person who is elected to an office decides prior to taking office that they no longer wish to serve in the office, what is the appropriate course of action? Is the member unable to formally submit the resignation (and as a result, the resignation cannot be accepted and the vacancy cannot be filled) until the time at which the term of office begins?
  15. I'm a little unclear on the details here. Is the limit in question being applied to board meetings or to meetings of the full association? If the former, then the board is entirely within its rights to limit debate in this manner, and would have such rights even if the rule in the bylaws on this subject did not exist. If that is the case, I don't think there is any recourse except to attempt to persuade board members that a different limit would be preferable. A special rule of order may be adopted (or amended) by a 2/3 vote with previous notice or a vote of a majority of the entire membership
×
×
  • Create New...