Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thank you very much for your response.
  2. To answer the questions posed. Richard Brown's question: The Vice President MAY move up to the office of President but is not required to do so. Succession is then entirely optional. Weldon Merrit's questions: 1.) By "governing body" I meant a special board of elected officers; 2.) the VP is the only candidate nominated for the position as he is the only one qualified at present; and 3.) the problem of finding available qualified officers is due to the fact that reaching the position of VP or Pres. requires having been an officer in our organisation for several years...the only people with this seniority have either already served and have neither the time or interest in taking on this position again. We have ahd several recent deaths which have left serious holes in our stock of leaders....given that we are such as smal organisation... but want to make sure we do things properly. This is also why we are so thankful to this VP for volunteering to stay on in this capacity. I hope this information helps to clarify this situation.
  3. To answer your questions: 1.) the governing body of the organisation holds the elections at the yearly meeting; 2.) the bylaws do not require a ballot vote; and 3.) yes, we can be 100% sure...our organisation is very small and this person is the only one at present who meets the criteria for both the office of the VP and President.
  4. Dear All: Our former Vice President resigned in the first six months of a twenty-four month term. In accordance with our bylaws, our nominating committee found and proposed a replacement officer. This person was then elected into office at the annual business meeting by a majority vote. Now that the original 24-month period is drawing to a close, our replacement VP would like to do the following: a.) complete the original 24 month term; and b.) begin his own term as VP for an additional 24 months before moving up to the position of President. The two reasons why our VP has made this request are serious familial health issues and a large (but temporary) increase of responsibility at work. Our bylaws stipulate that the VP “shall serve for two years or until a new Vice President is elected.” Given this wording, would it be permissible for the board of our organization to simply grant the extended term without holding a new general election? Our bylaws contain no formal limit on the number of terms (or years) any one person can serve in any office. All of the members of the Executive Board, save one, would be in favour of granting our current VP's request...not only because he is the best person for the job. Were we to hold a general election, the Nominating Committee would select this person as the best candidate and there is no other person who is interested (or qualified) to hold this position. So, extending the current VP's term would seem like the easiest option...but is it permissable according to Robert's Rules of Order???? YOUR EXPERTISE WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED! Nick
  5. nick


    Okay. That just made me laugh out loud!!! THANK YOU for that!!! I don't think I personally will be buying this person any Valentine's Day gifts any time soon though. But thank you for making me laugh. I needed that today!!
  6. nick


    Hi Jstackpo! Yes, I am finding that out. On the one hand, I have to admit that it is VERY time-consuming to constantly go through the RONR to find out what exactly the rules are and then write yet another report to the same person who keeps taking issue with decisions made and votes taken. On the other hand, I have developed a great deal of fondness for the RONR. I am only hoping that formal steps will not have to be taken to formally discipline this member. I have already had to issue two forrmal warnings for disruptive behavior during online and face-to-face meetings. Hats off to all of you who deal with this on a regular basis. AND THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR EXPERT OPINION. TRULY!!! Frequent Flyer
  7. nick


    Dear Mr. Brown, Thank you very much for your response to my question regarding Blacklisting. It is a very difficult issue; and I want to make sure that my organization has a fair, measured, and ethical response. I will definitely take steps to make sure that there is a transparent process for dealing with speakers who fail to give advanced notice of their non-attendance in the future. I will also make sure that whatever the organization decides is included in our Bylaws. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND INPUT!
  8. nick


    Hi Jstackpo! Can I just say that that last response was BRILLIANT!!! Thank you SO MUCH!! At the end of the day, I simply want to come up with an ethical, professional, and considerate response! THANK YOU! Frequent Flyer
  9. nick


    Dear Potzbie, Thank you very much indeed for your reply. Your reasoning is completely inline with my original thinking. I very much appreciate your sharing your expertise. My concern was not simply triggering an charge of libel. I also feel very strongly that a person having violated rules in one society does not warrant his/her being blacklisted by another, albeit affiliate society...Especially when one considers the fact that the affiliate society would like to consider rejecting a presenter BEFORE he/she has even submitted an abstract for possible acceptance. That would seem to be unethical and entirely undermine the concept of blind peer review. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, POTZBIE!!!
  10. nick


    Dear Jstackpo, Thank you for your reply. Perhaps I should explain more clearly. The list is only keep for researchers who have agreed to present a paper at a scientific conference and then fail to show up at all, without any advanced notice prior to the event; AND without giving reason for their absence after the event. Presenters are informed that failure to give advanced notice of their absence will result in their not being able to attend the very next conference. The reason for the prohibition is to put a stop to people claiming on their resumes to have presented a paper at a conference when in fact they did not. Aside from this unethical practice, the failure to alert the Society of an absence in time also means that the Society is left ot pay for facilities (e.g. a room, AV equipment, personnel, etc.) which are not used. Unfortunately, we have found that a few people have made a practice of this behaviour. To put a stop to it, we now keep an internal list of this repeated no.shows. My question is whether or not my interpretation of RONR (see above) is correct or not. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME! Frequent Flyer
  11. Dear All, Our society maintains an internal list of researchers who fail to give an excused absence prior to our annual conference. People who appear on this list are then prohbited from presenting a paper at a subsequent conference. A member of our society who is also the head of one of our affiliate societies recently asked for our internal listing. The person wanted to use the list to ban that same group of speakers. In reading the Robert's Rules of Order, I came to conclusion that the researchers on our internal list fell under the category of temporary "censure" and that as such, in accordance with Section XX, §63, circulating information about disciplinary actions taken can only be practiced "to the extent required for the protection of the society [...] Neither the society nor any of its members has the right to make public the charge of which an officer or member has been found guilty, or to reveal any details connected with the case. To make any of these facts public may constitute libel." (p. 655). For that reason, I declined to share this information. My other reason for declining the member's request is that we recently had a case where a presenter was errantly placed on this internal list. In response to my not sharing the list, the member wrote that I was misapplying the obert's Rules of Order. Is that the case? Any help you all could give would be VERY MUCH APPRECIATED!
  12. Dear Mr. Ralph, Thank you very much for your reply! I very much appreciate your time! Your commentary helped greatly! Sincerely, Nick
  13. Dear Mr. Mervosh and Mr. Honemann, Thank you very much for answering my question. I very much appreciate your time and expertise!!! Nick
  14. After the minutes of our organization had been read and approved, the President called for the officer reports to be read. After the first officer had finished giving a purely informational report on his activities over the past year, our new President requested that the next officer read his report. However, an ex-officio member insisted that a motion be made and seconded to accept each officer report and committee report, although all of the reports were purely informational and none contained recommendations or movements for action. In re-reading the Rules of Order, it would seem to me that requiring that informational reports all be moved and seconded for acceptance is unnecessary. Is my understanding correct or incorrect?