Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Joshua Katz

Members
  • Posts

    5,473
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Joshua Katz

  1. On 3/28/2024 at 12:04 PM, Casey239 said:

    A. The slate of officers projected by the Nominating Committee will be presented to the general membership. However, nominations (approved by the nominee prior to nomination) may be made from the floor at the March general meeting prior to election in April.

     

    Well, that's interesting. I still don't think you get out of allowing nominations by screwing up in March, but it says what it says. My thought is that nominations can still be reopened by motion, though.

    On 3/28/2024 at 12:04 PM, Casey239 said:

    What I hear you all saying between the lines is to use common sense and reasoning instead of adhering to the letter of the law.

    I don't think that's what we're saying.

    On 3/28/2024 at 3:14 PM, Casey239 said:

    The intent of the bylaw is to say that if there is more than one candidate (or nominee) per office, in other words, multiple candidates for one office, there will be a written ballot vote.  If there is a tie between candidates nominated, there will be a second written ballot vote taken.   

     

     

    On 3/28/2024 at 1:08 PM, Dan Honemann said:

    This is a rather interesting provision.  What it means to me is that (a), if there is only one nominee for an office that nominee should be declared elected by acclamation, and (b), if there is more than one nominee for an office, a ballot vote must be taken to determine who will be elected.  On no occasion will a voice vote actually be taken.

    I don't see how what you said is different from Mr. Honemann's summary.

  2. On 3/28/2024 at 10:46 AM, Anthony said:

    In September there was a highly charged meeting

    Of what?

    On 3/28/2024 at 10:46 AM, Anthony said:

    However the Chair stated he had already accepted her resignation. 

    The Chair is wrong.

    On 3/28/2024 at 10:46 AM, Anthony said:

    Keep in mind that the Membership Chair simply resigned his Committee Chair position not his Board seat.

    I'm going to choose not to get into this.

    On 3/28/2024 at 10:46 AM, Anthony said:

    This Executive Committee shall have the
    authority to act on behalf of the Board in matters which preclude the Board from direct involvement due to matters of
    confidentiality or expediency but shall be accountable to the Board for its actions.

    Well this is not great language, and so your organization will have to wrestle with what the EC may do. In the long run, the language should be amended.

     

    On 3/28/2024 at 10:46 AM, Anthony said:

    On December 4th @ 10 o'clock at night the Secretary sends out an email vote to the 3 members of the Executive Committee (the Treasurer has resigned).

     

     

    Do your bylaws allow email voting? If so, what do they say about procedure?

     

    On 3/28/2024 at 10:46 AM, Anthony said:

    the chair deceitfully misled the Board when he stated 2 Executive Committee members resigned.  The Board knows the two did not resign as they were at the meeting.

     

     

    I'm in no position to sort out the facts or determine if there was deceit, and in any case that's not a parliamentary question.

     

  3. On 3/28/2024 at 6:08 AM, Tomm said:

    Does that rule still apply to parliamentarians who are also members in small boards where the chair does still vote?

    It's only relevant when the parliamentarian is a member. When not a member, of course he may not vote or enter into debate. The chair's voting or debating does not enter into it, and the parliamentarian, unlike the chair, is expected to be impartial in small boards and committees as well.

  4. On 3/28/2024 at 5:09 AM, Casey239 said:

    Thank you both.  Now that I've thought more about the issue of the ad, it is moot.  The Board is allowed by our Bylaws to approve up to $250 at their discretion.  Anything more than $250 needs membership approval.  The ad has not been placed yet, and it is $40.   We probably shouldn't have brought this to the membership to begin with.  But since we did ask them, it looks like Ratify is the way to go.

     

    I disagree that it is moot. You could have chosen, it sounds like, not to go to the membership. But you didn't, and the membership spoke, a voice the board may not overrule. Unless, of course, your bylaws give the board exclusive authority over such expenditures.

    On 3/28/2024 at 5:09 AM, Casey239 said:

    Mr. Katz, I realize that the President is the person to take this action.

    I said that because we often get questions that say things like "our board is running our election in a way we don't like," and I wanted to emphasize that the board does not do anything at membership meetings.

    On 3/28/2024 at 5:09 AM, Casey239 said:

    We do have a Parliamentarian but she is very lax and disinterested.  Until I take the office in May, I will defer to our present Parliamentarian although the President is looking for guidance from me. It's a little sticky...

    A few things. First, no one can force the president to take advice from, or not take advice from, anyone. So if the president wants to ask you a question, it doesn't matter that your organization has a parliamentarian, for this purpose. Second, just to be clear, parliamentarians have no real power. The parliamentarian is simply an advisor to the chair, and the chair may or may not take the advice offered.

  5. On 3/27/2024 at 7:25 PM, Casey239 said:

    1.  Use the Reconsider motion to reconsider the vote to not place the ad. I was in favor of not placing the ad, so I think I can do this.  [RONR 12th Ed. 37]

     

    Reconsider is inappropriate, for a variety of reasons. The way to ask the membership to place an ad tha it voted down is just to make the motion again. But it sounds like you've already placed the ad, in which case the board should ask the membership to ratify and hope they do, otherwise the board will be paying the price of the ad.

    On 3/27/2024 at 7:25 PM, Casey239 said:

    2.   Since our Bylaws supersede RONR, we cannot use Acclamation in the election of officers. The nominees were presented this month, and they will again be listed for membership in our April meeting, then they will vote on them. It will need to be a voice vote per the Bylaws.  I don't see a way to get nominations from the floor a this point.

     

    It is no answer to say, well, we (the board) screwed up, so now you (the members) can't nominate anyone, and have to accept the nominees provided by the nomination committee. Instead, you should allow nominations at the elections meeting, at least. And by you, really, I mean the president, who will be presiding,not the board, since boards don't run membership meetings.

  6. On 3/26/2024 at 12:03 PM, Anthony said:

    Can the 3 board members that were illegally removed by the Chair be able to vote to overturn the Chairs decision?

     

    On 3/26/2024 at 12:36 PM, Josh Martin said:

    I’m honestly not sure.

     

    With some hesitation, I'll take a stab. Note: I've argued similar points before in organizations I was a member of, and did not convince a majority, so take it with a grain of salt.

    RONR states that the chair's decision stands unless and until overturned on appeal. The chair's decision has not been overturned on appeal. Therefore, it stands, and so they may not vote.

  7. On 3/25/2024 at 4:28 PM, Rob Elsman said:

    I have never understood it that way, and I would wager a lot of other people haven't, either.  I have always understood a continuing breach to be a violation all the time, so a Point of Order would be in order at any time.

    I certainly have never understood it that way, although I guess that doesn't tell us whether a lot of people haven't.

  8. On 3/25/2024 at 5:18 PM, Guest Roz said:

    I am serving as parliamentarian but do not have a law background at all.

    Good. The two are different and law degrees come with an unshakeable belief that the holder knows parliamentary procedure without study. 

    On 3/25/2024 at 5:18 PM, Guest Roz said:

    . I am in this spot because several attempts were made to fill it and I am the only person that stepped up.

    That's not the best way to fill a parliamentarian position, but it is what it is.

    On 3/25/2024 at 5:18 PM, Guest Roz said:

    I would love to update our bylaws to match the way we currently run things but had heard someone say that to change bylaws you have to have a lawyer present and then they have to be approved by a 2/3 membership vote.

    No the first (unless  you have strange bylaws that require it). As to the second, you'll need to consult your bylaws, but if they do not provide a threshold, it is a 2/3 vote with previous notice (not 2/3 of the membership, but a vote at a membership meeting exceeding the 2/3 threshold), or a majority of the entire membership voting in the affirmative.

  9. On 3/24/2024 at 10:33 AM, Guest Bylaws Referenced said:

    A. When a member fails to meet a financial obligation, he/she will be placed in delinquent status and remain in such status for a period of thirty (30) days. After this time if financial obligations have not been met, the individual automatically loses all privileges, including the right to participate in activities and club trips.

     

    I agree there's some ambiguity here for your organization to iron out. In my personal opinion, this is not enough to take away parliamentary rights. If it ended with "privileges," I'd think it a harder case, but the list following the general term tells us the general term is not a catch-all, but rather is catching things like the list. Parliamentary rights are not like activities are trips.

  10. Well, based on the above, I too agree that the Board acts improperly. But boards do that when the general membership lets them. Why is the Board conducting the annual meeting at all? Other than the chair of the board presiding, the board is not even present as such at annual meetings, let alone running them. The members need to take back the organization from this run-away board.

  11. On 3/21/2024 at 1:46 PM, Guest PastorSearchCommitteeChair said:

    3) 3/4 of those present must vote in favor (abstentions or blank ballots would for practical purposes be counted as no votes) (this would be the interpretation if we assume whoever wrote it was treating "quorum" as a fluid term)

     

    I agree that this seems most likely.

    On 3/21/2024 at 1:46 PM, Guest PastorSearchCommitteeChair said:

    Ultimately, my primary consideration in wanting this clarified is that we want the same rules to apply to calling and terminating a pastor (and I don't want to make it so easy to terminate a pastor that 3/8 of the congregation can do it by themselves). My suggestion will be that the church amend the by-laws over the course of the next several normal business meetings to fix this, but for the upcoming meeting, is the interpretation of that provision something we could do by a point of order to the moderator of the meeting? I'm imagining something like this:

    We nominate and select a moderator for the meeting. (Our by-laws use moderator for the person running the meeting rather than chair.) The main motion (the calling of the pastor) is made and seconded. Someone raises a point of order, "Mr./Ms. Moderator, a point of order. I seek a ruling by the moderator on what number of affirmative votes is required for the calling of a pastor under Article II, Section 1 of the by-laws." The moderator then provides the interpretation and the number based on the number of members present at the meeting. Any member present at the meeting has the opportunity to challenge it if s/he believes it is incorrect. We would then proceed with any debate and then move to end debate and vote with the vote tally being bound by the moderator's ruling.

    Well, something like that. It seems to me that asking the question before the votes are in is in the nature of a parliamentary inquiry, which does not bind the organization. But once the votes are in, if they meet some thresholds but not others, the moderator will decide which applies and announce the result, and a point of order could be raised that some other threshold should apply. The ruling on the point of order could then be appealed. Because the underlying motion to appoint the pastor is debatable, so is the appeal.

  12. It seems you have no vice-president. You have no control over who will preside in your absence - the convention body will elect a chair pro tem, and the secretary will preside over the election. So I'd say let the secretary know you won't be there and to prepare to briefly preside over that election. The convention body is under no obligation to elect a board member to preside, and probably shouldn't, as they'll be busy and have reports to give.

  13. A motion to amend the bylaws, despite its similarity in name to the subsidiary motion Amend, is a main motion, and so only one such motion can be immediately pending at a time. Therefore, what you propose is out of order. For what it's worth, I don't see how you could sequence bylaw amendments to be both time-efficient and fair. In fact, since there's nothing keeping you from adopting all of them, I don't see how you save time. You'd still need to consider them all. This is very unlike, say, a motion to set a value for dues, where all the proposals are numbers, and when you reach majority support, you stop.

  14. On 3/20/2024 at 1:32 PM, Guest Donna McGuire said:

    Our HOA is in turmoil because three new board members elected in February contend that previous annual meetings lacked a quorum, therefore the five board members elected at those two meetings are not valid members. My question is: If the minutes do not say whether a quorum existed, what rule should be followed? Are the elections invalid? (The minutues do not say one way or another whether a quorum existed. There might have been one; there might not have been one.)

    My guess is (maybe I'm wrong) that these new board members were previously general members. Since they're complaining about a meeting of the general membership, why are we just hearing about it now? Why didn't they say anything then?

×
×
  • Create New...