Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by paulmcclintock

  1. The entity wishing to transfer (delegate) powers may be a member, an officer, an executive board, or a society. 1. RONR says a member may not transfer his power to vote to another person (unless governing documents or laws allow it explicitly). Is any other member power transferrable when the rules are silent, e.g., the right to attend even if in executive session, or to nominate? 2. The bylaws say the president is to appoint the finance committee. Can the president transfer that power for the current term to the treasurer? 3. The bylaws say the executive board ("board") is to
  2. Assume that a society's parliamentary authority is RONR, that the constitution requires a notice for meeting 14 to 60 days beforehand, and that the bylaws requires a notice for meetings 10 to 50 days beforehand. 1. Is a notice valid if sent 55 days beforehand? 2. Is a notice valid if sent 12 days beforehand? 3. Do both requirements have to be met, or does it suffice to only meet the constitution's requirements? (E.g., suppose there were no overlap, would 2 notices have to be sent?) Rather than answer that the society has to vote to interpret their rules, as
  3. (1) The concept of a proviso appears in RONR clearly in the context adjusting the time at which a bylaw amendment becomes effective (p. 597). Page 398 hints that it could be used more generally, as perhaps does tinted page 22. Would you agree that its use is not limited to bylaws (and perhaps other types of rules), nor to the time something is effective? For example, assume an important main motion is pending and a member fears the meeting may end with it still pending. The member would like an adjourned meeting, but only if the motion is still pending at adjournment. Can the membe
  4. I was trying to justify the use of the standard order of business for the 2nd session, because I originally planned a different scenario, with semi-annual meetings, and it remained as a useless, confusing thought in the scenario as posted. Sorry to be confusing! Thanks for all the feedback.
  5. Per bylaws, regular meetings are quarterly in months 3, 6, 9, 12, but bylaws allow cancelling meetings. In March, they cancel the June meeting, and a main motion MM is pending. MM can't be postponed to the next regular meeting (September) because it is more than a quarterly time interval. But is seems to me that in March you could schedule an adjourned meeting for August to continue the current session, and postpone a main motion to the August meeting, and if the August meeting lacks a quorum and adjourns, then at the September meeting the motion would automatically come up as unfinishe
  6. RONR 11th ed., page xxxvii, says: Jefferson compiled his Manual of Parliamentary Practice, published in 1801. In it, he extensively cited about fifty English works and documents on parliamentary law and related subjects. Among his sources, however, Jefferson in his preface to the Manual (p. xv) acknowledges primary indebtedness to Precedents of Proceedings in the House of Commons by John Hatsell, who was clerk of the House of Commons from 1768 to 1820. First published in 1781, Hatsell's work is today the best authority on eighteenth-century procedure in the House of Commons. An elect
  7. Suppose Division of the Question applies to an amendment, with the first part immediately pending when Previous Question is ordered on all pending motions. I assume that the PQ will also apply to the other parts. E.g. I move the following Resolution: Whereas A; Whereas B; Resolved C. I move to amend by inserting before Resolved the following: "Whereas C; Whereas D;". While C is immediately pending, the previous question on all pending questions is moved and adopted. My assumption is that D is included in that order. If the assumption is c
  8. A: I move that we paint the meeting room red and buy a new gavel. B: I call for a separate vote on buying a new gavel. Chair: We will have a separate vote on buying a new gavel. The question is on the motion that we paint the meeting room red. C: I move to strike out "red" and insert "green." D: I move the previous question on all pending questions. [Adopted] Question, has the previous question been ordered for buying a new gavel? I.e., is it pending? The explanation of "immediately pending" on page 60 pertains to main motions in connection with subsidiary motions, but the e
  9. I expect this is clarified in some existing thread, but I can't recall ever having this clear in my mind, so... RONR (11th ed., p. 343, l. 18-23) says "motions are out of order if they conflict with a motion that has been adopted by the society and has been neither rescinded, nor reconsidered and rejected after adoption. Such conflicting motions, if adopted, are null and void unless adopted by the vote required to rescind or amend the motion previously adopted." OI 2006-18 concerns Amend Something Previously Adopted which was amended to be out of scope and then declared adopted with
  10. RONR p. 468, ll. 31-32 say that minutes should contain "the date and time of the meeting, and the place, if it is not always the same." An organized society can meet by teleconference per bylaws, and adopts RONR, but has no rule addressing this particular issue. Should (must?) the minutes contain the phone number and access code for the teleconference meeting as it's "location" (assuming it is not always the same)?
  11. Ah, I had missed these in RONR, which answer nicely the question. So even a delegation of one is in effect a committee of one. So reporting under Special Committees seems generally indicated. But if the President is ex officio a delegate, he/she could also give the report under the officers report, I'd think, as it relates to his/her duty as president. Thanks all for your feedback!
  12. An uncounted rising vote is taken. The chair declares the result. It is moved and seconded that the vote be counted. The chair does not process the motion for a counted vote, but instead immediately begins to retake the vote as a counted vote. Although the chair had the right to go to a counted vote before declaring the result (RONR p.52, l.24; p.281, l.29; p.285, l.15; p.401, l.34; p.559, l.19), does he have the right to do so afterward on his own initiative, as in this scenario? Can a point of order be raised that at this point only a majority vote can order a counted vote? - Just curiou
  13. RONR p. 356, l. 5 ff says: "If an officer, in reporting, makes a recommendation, he should not himself move its implementation, but such a motion can be made by another member as soon as the officer has concluded his report." 1. Does it need a second, since there obviously is a second member (the officer) in favor of the motion made by another member? 2. If it does need a second, can the reporting officer second it? 3. Why is this "should not" rule in RONR? Thanks for any feedback! -- Paul McClintock
  14. RONR, page 356, lines 5-8 states: "If an officer, in reporting, makes a recommendation, he should not himself move its implementation, but such a motion can be made by another member as soon as the officer has concluded his report." After another member makes the motion, does it need a second? I think not, since the recommendation from the officer already ensures that a second member wishes for the motion to be considered, assuming that the officer is a member. But I wonder if there are other opinions and the reasoning for them.
  15. "In order that there may be no interference with the assembly's having the benefit of its committees' matured judgment, motions to close or limit debate are not allowed in committees" (RONR 11th ed., p. 500, ll. 18-21). Q1: Can this rule be suspended? Q2a: If not, by what cited rule / principle, on pp. 263-264, or elsewhere? Q2b: If it can be suspended, does the p. 261, l. 15 rule ("no rule protecting a minority of a particular size can be suspended in the face of a negative vote as large as the minority protected by the rule") cause Suspend to require at least one more vote
  16. Sorry I didn't sign in before posting just now. I don't see how to change the post from Guest to me.
  17. Bylaws allow resolutions to be submitted late with a two-thirds vote to permit consideration. I don't find in RONR a general rule that motions on consideration are not debatable. Objection to consideration is not debatable per RONR, but I did not see debatability addressed for the motion to allow consideration of a motion outside the object of the society. Are there any citations for either the general question above or the title question?
  18. The default in RONR is that there are no qualifications for officers (RONR, 11th ed, p. 447, l. 16ff). But many organizations' bylaws do have some qualifications, such as you have to be a member, or you have to have been a member for X amount of time. (A) In such cases, can a person who does not meet those qualifications be elected to be a pro tem officer for the meeting? (B) If the answer is NO, then does that prevent an assembly from allowing a professional parliamentarian preside, if the person does not meet the qualification? (C) If the answer it NO to (A), if bylaws requi
  19. This came up at my NAP unit meeting yesterday. I couldn't think of an answer from RONR. I'll generalize the situation. A local unit of a national organization elects (let's say) 2 delegates to the national convention. Under RONR, "the delegate has the duty...to be prepared on returning from the convention to present to his unit an information report of what transpired" (p. 605, l. 23ff). The unit meets monthly and follows the RONR standard order of business ("MRS SUN"). Under what category of business do the delegates report? The question expands to: a. should the delegate be considere
  20. Suppose a society adopts RONR as its PA in its bylaws, and has a quorum of 5. Over time the membership drops to 4 with no change to the quorum requirement. At a meeting with all 4 members attending, can they suspend the rules for quorum and transact business? It appears to me that the new language in RONR 11th edition, p. 263, l. 20 through p. 264, l. 5 along with its footnote would allow this, so long as the body meeting has authority to amend its quorum requirement when it has a quorum (and meets whatever other procedural rules are prescribed for amending the quorum). Also, is this a
  21. See it online at https://sites.google.com/site/meetingtips/mcclintock-s-articles-and-handouts listed as HistoryofAyeandNo.pdf.
  • Create New...