Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

ParliamentaryBuff

Members
  • Posts

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

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

ParliamentaryBuff's Achievements

  1. I meant if the chair improperly ruled an amendment out of order on this basis, what would be the recourse, but it seems you answered that any member could then appeal the ruling
  2. I've found it a common practice, specifically at conventions, to rule out of order amendments which "alter the motion so much that it is in effect no longer the same motion". Sometimes this could be just a few words. 1) I haven't found any basis for this in RONR; does it contain any such prohibition? 2) If not, what's the procedure to address this since the point of order has already been ruled on? Can a member other than the one who raised the point make the appeal?
  3. Thank you all. UPDATE: the Rules Committee amended the rule to reference RONR latest edition.
  4. I guess that's what I was thinking, but I'm not trying to "throw something against the wall" if it doesn't really work, just to make sure we are interpreting appropriately so every member has their voice heard! Thanks again for all the effort. I think I'm clear now.
  5. Am I correct that you agree that the authority cited by the bylaws and convention rules are conflicting? I wasn't sure whether "Robert's Rules" could be interpreted as some generic catchall term (like we use Xerox to mean any kind of photocopy), or whether it clearly meant the "official" lineage culminating in RONR 12th ed.
  6. Hmm... that's what I was afraid of given that I think it will be hard to amend (I picture a sea of sleeping delegates as we delve into parliamentary nuance), although I now wonder if it's even in order to deviate from Robert's Rules given the bylaw provision: If the bylaws say that the Convention is governor by Robert's Rules unless expressly superseded by the bylaws, it seems to me (not that I'm an expert by any means) that powers beyond Robert's Rules can't be granted "full stop" - not by committee, standing rule, or even the assembly.
  7. Question 1 If bylaws cite "Robert's Rules of Order" as the parliamentary authority without specifying publisher, version, etc., is a certain version implied or is there latitude in interpretation? Could it mean "any version from any source"?! Our bylaws state: I assumed that "Convention, shall be governed by Robert’s Rules of Order" would mean the latest RONR, which I've been using as my reference given that "RONR is considered the most authoritative"[1]. Is that a correct/safe interpretation? Does it muddy the water at all that the above provision mentions "the most recent edition" for affiliates, but not for the parent organization and its Convention i.e. could someone say that the first case is not intended to necessarily mean the newest edition because if that was the intention it would have included the same explicit language included in the second case? Question 2 Then the convention rules of order, as recommended by the "Rules of Order Committee" state: I was a little taken aback by the mention of "2nd Revised Edition, Mary A. DeVries". The DeVries book seems to be a totally different document (albeit a relative of) RONR. Is this rule consistent with the bylaws? 1. https://robertsrules.org/versions.php
  8. Thanks again for walking through this with me. I accidentally submitted the form before my post was complete. There was also this: Rule No. 2: The manner of reporting by Committees shall be as follows: If the Committee makes revisions, modifications, or other changes in the resolution as submitted, the reporting member, after summarizing the resolution, giving the Committee’s recommendation and the reasons for its recommendation, shall state, “On behalf of the Committee, I move adoption of the resolution as revised. An ‘aye’ vote will be in favor of the adoption of the resolution as revised by the Committee.” If the Committee offers a substitute resolution as an amendment in the place of the resolution or resolutions as submitted, the reporting member, after summarizing the resolution, giving the Committee’s recommendation and the reasons for its recommendation, shall state, “On behalf of the Committee, I move adoption of the substitute resolution.” Rule #2 seems to potentially implicitly give the committee more power, or does it? If the committee is never explicitly granted the power to "make revisions" or "modifications" or even "substitute", does a provision explaining how they would be reported in those cases thereby authorize such power? I don't want to nitpick, but I feel that authorizing a committee to even substitute a resolution is too suppressive of members' voices in that the original resolution will never even come to the floor for debate.
  9. I checked the rules from the previous convention, as I assume that template will be proposed for this convention, with minor modifications (e.g. update the dates and times). Rule No. 1: Before there can be debate on a resolution, the Convention Committee to which that resolution has been referred, shall have the right to report on the resolution and to give the reasons for the Committee’s recommendations. Only after the Committee has moved consideration of the resolution can general debate on the resolution proceed. Rule No. 2: The manner of reporting by Committees shall be as follows: If the Committee makes revisions, modifications, or other changes in the resolution as submitted, the reporting member, after summarizing the resolution, giving the Committee’s recommendation and the reasons for its recommendation, shall state, “On behalf of the Committee, I move adoption of the resolution as revised. An ‘aye’ vote will be in favor of the adoption of the resolution as revised by the Committee.” If the Committee offers a substitute resolution as an amendment in the place of the resolution or resolutions as submitted, the reporting member, after summarizing the resolution, giving the Committee’s recommendation and the reasons for its recommendation, shall state, “On behalf of the Committee, I move adoption of the substitute resolution.” Rule #2 seems to potentially implicitly give the committee more power, or does it? If the committee is never explicitly granted the power to "make revisions" or "modifications" or even "substitute", does a provision explaining how they would be reported in those cases thereby authorize such power? I don't want to nitpick, but I feel that authorizing a committee to even substitute a resolution is too suppressive of members' voices in that the original resolution will never even come to the floor for debate.
  10. Thank you for your reply. The bylaws say: Rules of Order Deliberations, including the Executive Board meetings and the Convention, shall be governed by Robert’s Rules of Order to the extent that such Rules are not superseded by express provisions of the International’s Constitution and By-Laws. There is a "Committee on Rules of Order", but I would think that they would have the same inherent limitation on their power and would not be able to empower any committee beyond what the bylaws and by extension Robert's Rules allow without approval of the assembly. It doesn't even seem possible for the assembly to authorize such changes, since all these committees conclude their work before the assembly is even in session. Do I seem to be missing anything else?
  11. How much authority does a Convention committee, created by the President [1] to receive resolutions at convention, other than the Resolutions Committee, have in disposing of those resolutions where they are not explicitly given any particular powers? Specifically, can they (extensively) revise a resolution, and submit the revised resolution to the body as their own? My (possibly naive) interpretation is that their report would have to start with the original resolution and explicitly list each recommended amendment, not simply substitute their resolution for the original and recommend adoption, with the original never reaching the assembly. Example: I submit a resolution to enlarge our legal team e.g. "maintain a legal team of 3 lawyers by hiring one additional lawyer". The Policy Committee amends it to mean the reverse e.g. "maintain a legal team of 1 lawyer by firing one lawyer". The resolution that comes before the assembly is the committee's version to the body with the committee - not me - listed as the source, with the committee reporting "the committee recommends the resolution to maintain a legal team of 1 lawyer by firing one additional lawyer be adopted". I would think they would have to start with my resolution and report that "the committee recommends resolution [reference to mine as submitted] be... amended by [list each change]... and thus amended be adopted". The basis for my view that they would have to do the latter is RONR 12th Ed. 59:81 - "When the committee recommends amendments to a resolution, in cases where it is not empowered to incorporate them itself, its chairman reports as follows: ...recommends that the resolution relating to... be amended by... and that, as thus amended, the resolution be adopted.." However, that is about the Resolutions Committee and here another committee is taking over part of the traditional work of that committee. I also rely on the general committee rule: "Generally... has less authority to act independently for the society... than a board is usually understood to have. Thus, if the committee is to do more than report its findings or recommendations to the assembly, it may be empowered to act for the society only on specific instructions" 50:4, RONR 12th ed. Here's some background info... 1. Bylaws: "The President may appoint such other convention committees for the convention as may be necessary or desirable for the efficient and expeditious conduct of its business. Each such committee shall make a report of its deliberations and recommendations to the convention delegates for such consideration and approval as may be required." 2. Some of the committees thus created (i.e. not explicitly named in the bylaws) are the Policy Committee & Legislative Committee. Thanks!
  12. Our bylaws state that for votes where the cost is in excess of a certain amount, there must be a second opportunity to vote for members who were working during the meeting (we do shift work so there will always be members working). Such a vote is coming up and I have not found anything in RONR helpful in determining how to actually do this and it hasn’t happened in recent memory. My major concern is that members could attend both meetings and have their vote counted twice. I was thinking a roll call or ballot vote would prevent that but wanted some input before we move ahead. Thanks
  13. We are equally concerned with both, but since it seemed like the answer would be the same, I tried to simplify the question.
  14. Thanks for the quick reply. Yes, their terms are staggered. Regarding the procedure for filling vacancies, the bylaws state: There is also:
  15. Our union officer election results are being counted and the result should be announced this afternoon. Both candidates for President currently hold another office, so we expect the original position of whoever wins to be replaced by special election. Our overall goal is to have this special election process go as smoothly and quickly as possible. The speed is especially important because one outgoing officer (a different position on the same special election ballot) is retiring and we want as much overlap with his successor as possible so he can teach them. Regarding installation, the bylaws say: We want to post for the special election as soon as possible. We are assuming that we can’t actually do that until the offices are technically vacant. Is that correct? If so, based on the above, when would that actually happen? What is the difference between “installation” and “assum[ing] the duties and responsibilities"? Regarding the oath, the above says “meeting”. Could that be a board meeting or must it be a membership meeting? We don’t really have an “induction meeting”. The practice has been that the new officers just start doing their thing on the first of the following month, but we'd like that to happen sooner. In order to expedite, if necessary we thought we might have the President-elect resign their current position at a special board meeting tonight so we could post for their position. The current President is also willing to resign if that simplifies things. However, we were worried by this bylaw provision: If they resign to “do the right thing”, are they “refusing to serve”? We obviously don't want them to be penalized in any way, especially being barred from holding another office going forward. Anyway, we’d like your thoughts on the safest and quickest way to proceed. Thanks.
×
×
  • Create New...