Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Joshua Katz

Members
  • Content Count

    3,320
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Joshua Katz

  1. Just to add, nothing prevented tie votes from happening when you had 3 Class A Directors. One could be absent or abstain. But it's also not a problem.
  2. I am puzzled, in practice, by what would be achieved by requiring the President to have a parliamentarian she does not want. She'd just not listen and ask questions.
  3. I really do need to know exactly what the bylaws say to answer this, not a paraphrase.
  4. Well, straw polls are prohibited, so if that's what you're describing, that's one thing. If you mean simply informal discussion prior to a motion, it is permitted in a small board or committee, but in a large assembly there is no debate without a motion. I have personal doubts as to the wisdom in most small boards of allowing this, but that's the rule.
  5. Do your bylaws allow email voting by the membership? Assuming, as is likely, that they are set by the bylaws, no. But it doesn't sound like the board claims to have done so. It sounds like the board asked the membership to do it. They can't either. That depends. What exactly do your bylaws say about term of office? Please give the quote, not a paraphrase.
  6. Mr. Martin, the purpose of these laws is typically to avoid annoying the neighbors with the constant need to respond to and testify about the same application, at pain of winning the battle and losing the war. ("Well, no opposition this time.") Regardless, without seeing the language, I should not have opined on whether or not a loophole is odd, and I'm certainly not going to argue about it.
  7. Agreeing with Mr. Brown, here was my personal path. I had, of course, been active in organizations using RONR. First, I read RONR. Then I took the membership exam (and struggled with parts because it didn't allow for nuance). Then I read RONR again, this time following the references as they came up and jumping around the book, and took the RP exam. Since then, I've felt ready for a while to do PRP, but have not found the time to attend a class. I signed up for one and almost made it, but something came up at work and I had to cancel.
  8. This is also correct in RONR. I don't think you have a parliamentary question. The real question here is the impact of state and local laws governing zoning (and a few Supreme Court decisions) on parliamentary procedure. As a matter of parliamentary procedure, of course, a failed motion could simply be made again at a new session. But, as is common, you don't allow requests to be made again within a certain time frame. I'm unclear why the law would permit a loophole like rescinding the denial, but if that's what the lawyer says, I'm not going to argue (unless someone pays me to do so). All sorts of odd things happen with land use. For instance, it is out of order, per RONR, to move to do nothing. So a decision on an application, one would think, should be made by moving to grant it, and then voting it up or down. But as a matter of due process, you generally need to affirmatively deny the application, so a failed vote to grant a variance is often followed by a motion to deny the variance to meet the legal standard.
  9. Do you mean that the past president has been allowed to vote simply because he is the past president, despite the bylaws saying nothing of the sort, or that it's always been the case that past presidents take on some other board position? If the former, you need to stop doing that. Assuming this person is not a member of the board for some other reason, not only can this be done, it must. It's not that he is "no longer" an official voting member of the board, but that he never was. And every decision on which the past president cast a deciding vote, if not executed or remaining in force, is subject to a point of order. As for advice, well, you can't really stop someone from texting the president advice.
  10. What RONR says about this is that, in order to hold electronic meetings, you need to have authorized it in your bylaws, and you should adopt rules explaining how it works. It's unlikely those rules get into Zoom features like speaker view vs. gallery rule, but they could be amended to address the matter.
  11. Those objecting are correct. Those supporting admit it adds language to the bylaws. Thus, it amends them and must follow the procedure for amending the bylaws.
  12. If your bylaws allow for co-officers, then it is allowed. If they do not, it is not. This is not a RONR prohibition, it's just that your bylaws define officer positions and specify how many people hold them.
  13. Well, then I clearly do not understand the subject.
  14. If it's within the jurisdiction of another committee, I think it's out of order for the assembly to take any action. They'd need to move to take it from the committee's hand, then take it up. If it was a referred motion, it's just the same original main motion considered again. If only the topic was referred, then, after the assembly takes it back, there would be an original main motion. What am I missing?
  15. I guess I'm having trouble seeing why this is difficult. It seems clear to me that it's an original main motion.
  16. Good point. This is typically the rule, for instance, in land use issues. It's always fun when the board manages to vote down both motions and we have to stare at each other and try again.
  17. If there is no business to conduct on the agenda item, there is nothing to support or oppose. A motion to not do something is out of order. If no one makes a motion, move on to the next agenda item.
  18. I believe there are other fora for debating the merits of decisions within an organization.
  19. Well, it seems to me that it matters whether the person is a member of the body that is meeting, which is a bit unclear from the question. Assuming yes: What do you mean by receive? If the question is having access to the minutes, then the answer is yes, the reason being that the person is a member and thus entitled to see the minutes. The organization is not, unless its rule provide otherwise, required to provide anyone with a copy. If not, then the person has no particular rights to the minutes.
  20. Typically, this is not what you'd do either. There is very little not provided for in RONR so far as rules of order are concerned, although you may wish to modify some of them in your own rules. Your bylaws should spell out the structure of your organization, which is unique to you. See the sample bylaws in RONR for, well, a sample. Well, it sounds like you have seriously confusing bylaws that have, in some places, imported too much of RONR rather than simply adopting it, and in other places, substituted confusing paraphrases that have different meanings. However, my reading of the phrase in question here is different than yours. Regardless, what matters is what your organization thinks it means. A point of order can be raised (which, apparently, the chair will not rule on, but instead there will be a vote and one answer will need a majority of those present), which will be the society's decision as to what it means.
  21. As I said, a modification of the rule in RONR, and one that can lead to difficulties such as leaving questions unresolved. I don't think it's a good rule, I just think it's their rule.
  22. Any suggestions on how to approach the situationin 3 if all board terms expired at the same time?
  23. I should have mentioned I was implicitly using noscitor a sociis. It's a list of three things, so I'm interpreting "matters" to fit with the rest, not to mean "everything," which would make the rest irrelevant. I agree.
  24. Well, this is obviously not how the motion for the previous question works, but I'm struggling to see what it has to do with the bylaw provision you posted. To put it another way: why do you think that the bylaw provision, which deals with points of order, applies to the previous question? I'm not asking to be snarky, I'm trying to understand your thought process. Also, it occurs to me that the bylaw provision means that the chair does not rule on points of order, and every point of order is decided by the assembly. Again, I can't interpret your bylaws, but to me personally that's what it seems to be saying.
×
×
  • Create New...