Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

mjhmjh

Members
  • Posts

    100
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by mjhmjh

  1. I recently chaired a meeting and want to make sure I followed the rules.

    At the conclusion of debate (the special rules of order set an overall time limit on debate), a member stood to be recognized, was recognized, and moved to extend debate by two minutes. The motion was seconded and failed.

    This same member then stood to be recognized, was recognized, and moved to extend debate by one minute. The motion was seconded and failed.

    The same member then stood to be recognized, was recognized, and moved to extend debate by 45 seconds. I ruled the motion dilatory, as it seemed clear the meeting did not want to continue debate. The maker of the motion appealed the decision of the chair. I gave the first speech in debate, others spoke (no more than once), and I spoke last. We voted, and the meeting voted to maintain the decision of the chair.

    Was all of this proper? 

  2. When a document (in this case a complete bylaws revision) is being considered in seriatim, is there a way to end debate on one article and move on to the next? RONR page 279 line 25 says that the previous question and motion to limit/extend debate cannot be applied to individual paragraphs (articles in this case). Could the rules instead be suspended to the effect that debate ends on the current article and proceeds to the next?

  3. In my organization, the body meets just twice a year. The executive board has full control over the organization in between these biannual meetings. Our organization has many accounts (Facebook, Instagram, etc.) and the EB would like to adopt standing rules regarding the control of these accounts. This seems like a proper use of standing rules, as RONR says they should be "related to the details of the administration of a society" (page 18). Before I draft them, I want to make sure I'm not violating any important principles.

    One proposed standing rule would give control of half of the accounts to the Secretary (an appointed position not on the EB) and control of the other half to the Internal Affairs Director (an elected position not on the EB) a few days before the election of a new EB. This would prevent disgruntled former officers who failed to be reelected from seizing control of the accounts (which has been an issue in the past). After the election, the Secretary and Internal Affairs Director would each give the passwords to the new EB.

    The other standing rule I am less sure I about. In the event any three members of the 7-person Executive Board suspect someone is stealing data (which has been an issue in the past), the Secretary and Internal Affairs Director would then be able to take control of half of the accounts each. They would maintain control until the EB could meet, deal with the situation, and vote to take back control of the accounts.

  4. 5 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

    No, not in my opinion.  However, I am not a member of your organization and it is your members who must ultimately interpret your bylaw provisions.  Personally, I do not believe one day's notice of a proposed bylaws amendment is reasonable notice.

    A member can certainly raise such a point of order.  In my opinion, the point of order would be well taken because I do not believe one day's notice of a proposed bylaw amendment is reasonable notice.  Again, though, it is your presiding officer and/or your membership which would  ultimately make that decision.  This is a matter of bylaws interpretation, something only the members of your organization can do.  You must decide what is "reasonable notice" or adequate "prior notice"  under all of the circumstances and based on your bylaws.  If your members decide that one day's notice is reasonable, so be it.

    I think that since the twice yearly biannual meeting can be called with one week's notice, a one week's notice seems reasonable to me when it comes to giving notice of proposed bylaw amendments.

    That is my personal  opinion, knowing only the bylaw snippets we have been provided.  If it is reasonable to call a biannual meeting with one weks's notice, it seems reasonable to me to provice one week's notice of proposed bylaw amendments.

    Thank you for your help.

  5. RONR covers the method of counting votes (i.e. a candidate needs a majority of the votes cast to be elected; if no candidate gets a majority, you ballot again), so it need not be included in the bylaws. However, the membership of my organization prefers to have the election method somewhat delineated in the bylaws. Our bylaws currently state:

    Quote

    The officers must be elected by ballot, with balloting for each office following nominations for that office. A majority is necessary for election; if no candidate receives a majority, balloting must repeat until one does.

    I have always read this as being perfectly consistent with the vote counting method in RONR (i.e. it doesn't "break" anything). Can any of you find issue with it?
     

  6. 1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

    I agree with Mr. Harrison.  I see nothing in the bylaw quotes provided that requires that notice of bylaw amendments be mailed to the members at the time that the call (notice) of the meeting is mailed, even though that is customary in many (or even most) organizations.  These bylaws simply require that prior notice be given. 

    All things considered, since one week's notice of the biannual meeting is all that is required and no specific date for mailing notice of proposed bylaw amendments is specified, I believe that mailing  notice of proposed bylaw amendments at least one week prior to the meeting would suffice.

    Does this mean a member could give notice of an amendment the day of a meeting or the day before a meeting and still fulfill the notice requirement? Would another member be justified in raising a point of order against the consideration of such an amendment?

  7. 1 hour ago, Joshua Katz said:

    This is not clear to me. RONR describes several ways of giving notice.

    1 hour ago, Chris Harrison said:

    Why not send out the notification of the meeting right after the Board decides when it will be (is a week enough time for the members to arrange their schedules so they can attend?)?  Then the Secretary collects any proposed amendments and sends them to the members at some point prior to the meeting. 

    This passage from page 124 led me to think notice of a motion (in this case a motion amending the bylaws) and of a meeting go out together.

    Quote

    Instead of being given at a meeting, a notice can also be sent to every member with the call of the meeting at which the matter is to come up for action, except where the rules of the organization provide otherwise. In such a case, the member desiring to give the notice writes to the secretary alone, requesting that the notice be sent with the call of the next meeting; and the secretary should then do this at the expense of the organization.

     

  8. My organization meets twice a year. At these biannual meetings, we only elect officers and amend the constitution. The constitution says 

    Quote

    The Constitution may be amended by a two-thirds vote at the biannual meeting, provided that prior notice is given.

    In the article on meetings, it is said that 

    Quote

    Members must be notified of the biannual meeting at least one week in advance.

    In the article on the Secretary's duties, it is said that

    Quote

    The Secretary must ... notify members of biannual meetings

    Additionally, the Executive Board has the duty of fixing the hour and place of the biannual meeting (the biannual meeting must occur within 6 weeks of a certain twice-yearly event of great importance to our organization). It is my understanding that the Secretary must include any amendments submitted to him with the meeting notice. My question is about the details of this process.

    Let's say the Executive Board met today and scheduled the biannual meeting for March 15th at 6 p.m. The Secretary then immediately sends a notice of the meeting to all members. No amendments were submitted to the Secretary, so none are included in the notice and none will be considered at the meeting.

    This situation seems unfair to us, so our practice has been to have the Secretary wait to send out the official notice until 1 week before the meeting. Between the Executive Board's scheduling of the meeting and the 1 week deadline, the Secretary solicits amendments from the membership. This practice is not in RONR nor our constitution (but it is not prohibited). Are we breaking any rules?

  9. 1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

    You are correct regarding the general rules on this subject. There are additional rules on this subject in this case, however, since you ask whether (and how) the Executive Board (not the society itself) may establish the committees in question.

    “As a general principle, a board cannot delegate its authority—that is, it cannot empower a subordinate group to act independently in its name—except as may be authorized by the bylaws (of the society) or other instrument under which the board is constituted; but any board can appoint committees to work under its supervision or according to its specific instructions. Such committees of the board always report to the board.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 484-485)

    Therefore, it seems to me that the executive board can not establish standing committees “with standing authority to act on certain matters without specific instructions,” unless authorized to do so by the society’s rules.

    The executive board certainly may not establish new boards, which may be done only by amending the bylaws.

    Thanks for the help.

    "The Executive Board may create standing committees and boards with standing authority to act on certain matters without specific instructions."

    Would that do the trick?

  10. In our organization, the bylaws don't mention committees at all. We simply meet yearly to elect the Executive Board. Can the Executive Board establish standing committees and boards—with standing authority to act on certain matters without specific instructions—that report to it? It is my understanding that such standing committees and boards would need to be in the Executive Board's special rules of order, per page 578.

  11. On 3/9/2018 at 11:54 PM, J. J. said:

    I agree,  provided that the staff was not appointed by a main motion.  The power to remove would exist, but by means of a motion to rescind.

    You seem to be implying that the Executive Board could appoint general staff through the passage of a motion (the organization only meets twice a year and the EB has full authority over the organization’s affairs in between those two meetings). How is this the case if the constitution explicitly grants the president the power to appoint general staff, and the EB the power to appoint independent staff?

  12. 1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

    Well, that's one way, but it's not the only way.  Page 177 makes plain that the appointing authority has the power to "remove or replace" appointees: 

    "The power to appoint a committee includes the power to fill any vacancy that may arise in it. The resignation of a member of a committee should be addressed to the appointing power, and it is the responsibility of that power to fill the resulting vacancy (see also pp. 467–68). Unless the bylaws or other governing rules provide otherwise (see pp. 497, 653), the appointing authority has the power to remove or replace members of the committee: If a single person, such as the president, has the power of appointment, he has the power to remove or replace a member so appointed; but if the assembly has the power of selection, removal or replacement can take place only under rules applicable to the motions to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted (see p. 497). Committee members are presumed to serve until their successors are appointed. "

     

    I'm familiar with that passage, but my concern is that it specifically refers to committee appointments.

  13. Our constitution tasks the president with appointing a number of  "general staff" positions, and the Executive Board with appointing a number of "independent staff" positions. The constitution does not specify the term for such positions, nor a procedure for removing staff. Can the president unilaterally remove general staff, and the executive board independent staff? I know RONR says that a president with the authority to appoint committee members may also remove them, but I'm not sure if that applies to other things as well.

    Here is a link to our constitution. Articles 7-9 are particularly relevant: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HasJflfN5CKSqdEz0n3ihdK3cgq6-3ooyuBq0pFllRs/edit?usp=sharing

    Edit: the staff are not paid, there are no contracts, and the organization is not incorporated

  14. 34 minutes ago, J. J. said:

    You could also lay the election of the vice president on the table, while that is pending. 

    It is my understanding that a motion can only be taken from the table under the class of business it was originally made (in the case of elections, special orders). Would the motion to take the election of the vice president from the table have to be made following all other elections? Or could it be made, say, between the election of the secretary and treasurer?

  15. On 3/5/2018 at 9:53 AM, Josh Martin said:

    A motion to Suspend the Rules for this purpose would be in order. A motion to Postpone to a Certain Time would also be in order.

    Instead of either of those two methods, would it be in order to adopt an agenda at the beginning of the meeting with an alternate election order?

    Edit: Or to table the election of a certain officer and take it from the table later in the meeting?

  16. 7 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

    It seems to me that such "special rules of order for each biannual meeting" are directly analogous to standing rules at a convention, since they apply to one session only, and therefore the votes required to adopt, suspend, or amend such rules would be the same as for the standing rules at a convention.

    Based upon my reading of the section in RONR on standing rules for a convention, there wouldn't need to be notice, but the rules could only be adopted by a 2/3 vote. Is that right?

  17. 6 hours ago, Bruce Lages said:

    Perhaps the OP could respond and tell us whether the organization's usual practice is that the special rules of order proposed by the secretary and then adopted are applied only to the semi-annual meeting at which they are adopted.

    The usual practice is that they are applied only to the biannual meeting at which they are adopted, the reasoning being that the by-laws state "each biannual meeting."

  18. Just now, Bruce Lages said:

    I don't see how the secretary being the originator of proposed special rules of order has any bearing on RONR's requirement for prior notice. Presumably, if the secretary is sending out the notice of meeting, inclusion of prior notice for special rules of order would not be a problem.

    A summary of any and all proposed special rules of order would be sufficient provided that the summary clearly and completely explains the purpose of each proposed rule. See RONR, p. 122, ll. 22-27.

    Thank you

×
×
  • Create New...