Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Joshua Katz

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Joshua Katz

  1. The general discussion of amendments. There are rules as to the effect of amendments on what is struck and retained.
  2. A deliberative assembly that is not a legislature. Obviously, in certain cases, laws may apply that define conflict of interest differently than we do.
  3. It is, at least in a democratic situation. They might have a point in certain administrative and judicial contexts. But not in a situation of the sort described in RONR. Even less so, in my opinion, where they represent a constituency.
  4. Since it would change the results, what is needed is very careful bylaw interpretation to determine the next steps here. Normally, I would then ask you to post the precise language without paraphrase (and you still might try, as others might be willing to comment) but in this case, I am not sure it's worth trying. Bylaw interpretation requires understanding the provision at issue within the context of the full document and the organization as a whole. I doubt I'd be willing to venture a guess. So, either your organization will need to determine exactly what is going on with this language,
  5. What matters is what the chair said. But sometimes the chair just says something like "article 1 as it appears in the documents." That's a little tougher, but the bottom line is that something produced after the meeting, containing errors, is not what controls. What controls is what the members voted on. You might consult the minutes for evidence as to what that language was. But if the final printing after the fact does not reflect what was voted on, then it should be fixed. There's no need to adopt it again; no one has the unilateral power to change what was adopted by misprinting it.
  6. Well, that's odd on its face - a bylaw that allows the validity of an election to depend on future events. I would suggest that other interpretations should be preferred, if possible. Be that as it may, it isn't clear to me that this means the election was improper. Start with the easy question - if those voters are removed, would it change the results? Only if so is there anything to worry about. Next, I'm not sure that a later resignation can have a retroactive effect to invalidate the election.
  7. In what way was it not in accordance?
  8. First, I would suggest reading the book cover to cover, twice. The first time, you read it through. The second time, you follow up on the cross-references. Second, hang out here and try to answer questions. (For that, you'll want to sign up for a membership.) Third, you've got to try it out, preferably where it won't get you or anyone else in too much trouble. Consider joining an NAP unit, where meetings are usually punctilious about RONR for the simple reason that it's what the organization is meant to teach. There, you can raise points of order you would not otherwise.
  9. It's a fair question. If there's one thing I learned by being in school most of my life, it's that I need to be ready to be wrong. I can see the argument for it not being a rule of order, namely that posting happens outside the meeting. I can see the argument for it being one, namely that the minutes are about the meeting. I'm not sure how to resolve it, honestly.
  10. I would think what is done with minutes would require a special rule of order, but if I'm wrong, I'm wrong.
  11. And while we're at it, about the term of office of the VP?
  12. A majority vote. A 2/3 vote, or majority of the entire membership (of the board), or a majority with notice.
  13. Yes. But how do I list different Standing Rules and Special Rules of Order that are specific to each assembly (General Membership & Board) outside of the Bylaws? I fail to see how Dr. Kapur's answer doesn't address precisely this question.
  14. Sure. But neither one is a part of the bylaws, as B suggests.
  15. The Secretary takes the minutes. If the Secretary is absent, the body elects a secretary pro tem. The Secretary cannot force another minute-taker on the assembly, so in that limited sense, the concern is true. However, the Secretary can have someone else assist him.
  16. None of these rules are subsets of another, so C.
  17. Where in the small board rules are you seeing that the rules of debate may be changed without adopting a special rule of order? If you mean that the board may follow the small board rules without a special rule, then yes, I agree. That's what RONR says. I am of the opinion that a small board needs either a special rule of order, or to suspend the rules for the session, to enforce the full rules.
  18. Agreeing with Dr. Kapur, the originally cited rule is inapplicable because a board is not a committee.
  19. It can be introduced at the meeting, unless some rule of the organization requires previous notice. However, the topic must be on the call of the meeting.
  20. If the rules allowed one member of a 7 member board to cripple the organization, I would say the rules are wrong. (Ahem.) But if they allow a majority of the board to cause problems, well, I can't say that makes the rules wrong.
  21. Well, from what we've been told, they are clearly incorrect. The next issue is, how many are "they"? If a majority of the organization, you'll need to accept that they do not wish to use RONR. If only a handful, you can gather some supporters of parliamentary procedure (might take some work, but you can explain the benefits to the organization - fairness, efficiency, and so on) and raise points of order, with others available to move to appeal and to speak in debate on the values of what you're saying. Ultimately, though, RONR and parliamentary procedure are for those organizations wishing to
  22. Suppose the bylaws require notice to all members for all meetings, regular or special. Suppose a member does not receive notice but knows about the meeting, and there is reason to think the lack of notice was purposeful. It still seems to me that the rules have been violated and it would be appropriate to raise a point of order to that effect at the next meeting. The effect of a ruling that the point of order is well-taken would be to instruct whoever sends out notice to not purposefully leave people off in the future.
  23. If the claim is that it is unlawful, and they really mean that claim literally, I'm afraid you'll need an attorney's advice to resolve it. The answer you've gotten here is a parliamentary answer. From the parliamentary perspective, bylaws can say pretty much anything. From a legal perspective, in certain types of organizations, they cannot.
  • Create New...