mjhmjh

RONR states that immediately following the passage of the bylaws, the election of officers takes place. Could the bylaws be passed with the proviso that elections not take place until the following meeting, and that the temporary officers elected to guide the creation of the organization continue in that capacity until such a time?

Also, if the bylaws state that regular meetings must be scheduled by resolution at least 21 days in advance, would we have to wait 3 weeks between the meeting where the bylaws are passed and the following meeting?

Duplicate

Page 459 line 4 may be of assistance

Per RONR section 54 (page 553), I'm having the "First Organizational Meeting" of an organization I'm forming. This section mentions that following a presentation by the person most interested in forming the society, there should be a casual discussion about the purpose and structure of the society. Is there a motion to have the secretary pro tem summarize this discussion in the minutes? I realize that minutes are not usually for this purpose, but I think an exception is appropriate in this case.

The Society meets on the first of every month. A member wishes to make a motion at the February meeting that requires previous notice, but failed to give notice at the January meeting. If a special meeting were to occur between the regular January and February meetings, could notice be given at that special meeting and then acted upon at the February meeting?

1 hour ago, Godelfan said:

Okay, but based on the citation given originally, I'm having trouble going from "Any board can..." to "The President can..." 

As am I, which leads me to believe that the president has no such unilateral power unless stated in the bylaws.

4 hours ago, Gary c Tesser said:

I'm overlooking the requirement for this in RONR:  someone point it out, please?

4 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

I'm curious, too, and anxiously await the citation. It is Mardi Gras day in New Orleans, you know, and any kind of work, such as looking up a citation , is against the rules and would be blasphemy. Besides, even we RONR fanatics don't carry it around with us to parades.  We leave it in the car. ?

Laissez les bon temps rouler!

I can't find the citation, which leads me to believe that I was wrong.

22 minutes ago, Transpower said:

RONR (11th ed.), p. 485, ll. 1-4:  "...but any board can appoint committees to work under its supervision or according to specific instructions.  Such committees of the board always report to the board."  So, I'd say that the president could assign one of his duties to another member, with specific instructions, provided that this other member reports back to the board.  In this case, this would be a special committee of one.

Such committees would have to be composed of board members and would require board approval.

5 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

I'm afraid I don't really understand the question.

Edited to add: if you are asking what I think you are asking, and if the matter was referred to a committee by the general membership rather than by the board, I believe that such committee referral puts the matter beyond the reach of the executive board.

Yes that's what I was asking

The bylaws of the Society use the same text as the RONR sample bylaws on page 586 regarding EB authority: "The Executive Board shall have general supervision of the affairs of the Society between its business meetings, fix the hour and place of meetings, make recommendations to the Society, and perform such other duties as are specified in these bylaws."

This is expounded upon on page 578 lines 1-4 to mean "The Executive Board shall have the responsibility to supervise, and to determine the details of, implementation of the decisions of the Society and, in a manner not inconsistent with such decisions, to attend to any business of the Society that cannot wait until the next meeting."

If the Society gave a committee power to carry out a motion, would the EB have any authority regarding the "details of" or "implementation of" that motion? Or would only passed motions not referred to a committee with power fall under the purview of the EB?

On ‎2‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 8:38 AM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Is this the Nancy way of recalling things such as the sentence on page 456, lines 25-28? 

That sentence only seems to apply to the president, not all of the officers. Or am I missing something...

4 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

 

Yeah. What did Richard forget to amend in his first paragraph?

26 minutes ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

Maybe he forgot to explain what the book is talking about. After all, doesn't every committee have the power to take all the steps necessary to carry out its instructions? (Or at least as much power as it could be given by the body that issued those instructions.)

23 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

I quoted directly from RONR in both paragraphs, so I,  too, am wondering what I "forgot" to amend in the first paragraph.

RONR uses the term"full power" in the quote in the first paragraph and uses the word"power" in the quote in the second paragraph. I don't see any meaningful difference between the two terms in the context in which they are used. 

My bad, he didn't forget to amend anything. Both the terms "power" and "full power" appear in RONR so I think it just depends on what comes after the word "power." Lines 5-14 on page 172 seem to support my take.

4 hours ago, Guest Nancy N, said:

So what does "full" mean?

I don't think there's a distinction in RONR between power and full power. It seems to me that Richard added the second paragraph of his post after posting and simply forgot to amend the first paragraph.

10 minutes ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

This question cannot be answered without knowing the wording of the motion to refer.

How could a motion be worded to give a committee executive authority?

4 minutes ago, Hieu H. Huynh said:

Was the committee given "full power" to act?

Yes

Say the motion "That the Society have a booth at the county fair, with up to $500 spent on registration and giveaways" is referred to a committee, and that committee is given the power to act. The committee then passes the motion as is. Would being given the power to act also give the committee the power to execute that motion, or would that have to be specified elsewhere in the motion?

1 hour ago, George Mervosh said:

No, but if it is an officer, it's a duty imposed as the result of adopting a standing rule.  Imposing a duty on an officer via a standing rule is what you asked about back in post # (heck I don't know I didn't get my PhD).

Two questions

Q1: Are there any limitations to the duties that can be assigned to officers in special rules of order or standing rules?

Q2: Would the bylaws have to specifically allow for the assignement of duties to officers in special rules of order or standing rules, or would having adopted RONR as the parliamentary authority with the proper bylaws clause be enough?

3 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

 

It appears, however, that mjhmjh's bylaws do not contain that precise language.  Or maybe they do.  mjhmjh has not told us what his bylaws say about the parliamentary authority.   mjhmjh, can you tell us EXACTLY what your bylaws say about the parliamentary authority? 

So, the question is: Can they prescribe additional officer duties by standing rule (or, perhaps more appropriately, by special  rule of order)?

Even if the bylaws do not contain the language indicated on page 588 about the parliamentary authority, I am inclined to say that they can still impose additional duties by means of a special rule of order (or perhaps even a standing rule), but I can see how others might disagree.  I reach this conclusion because RONR clearly gives the society the right to adopt special rules of order that differ from the rules in RONR.

Edited to add:  As to whether such additional duties, assuming they can be added, should be listed in standing rules or special rules of order, I simply don't know.  I give up on that issue for the time being.  My head is still spinning from the last time we got into the weeds of standing rules vs special rules of order when it comes to officer duties.  I guess I need to look for a couple of those recent threads.

Article X -- Parliamentary Authority The rules contained in the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised shall govern the Council in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order the Council may adopt.

The bylaws do contain the precise language from page 588 (the Council is the short-hand name of the organization). I suppose the question now is whether the duties should be special rules of order or standing rules. Based on my understanding of RONR, if the duties relate to meetings, they have to be special rules of order, whereas administrative duties have to be standing rules.

The bylaws read as follows, "The officers shall perform the duties prescribed in the parliamentary authority and these bylaws"

Can additional duties be prescribed as standing rules, so long as they are not inconsistent with higher governing documents? If not, how should the bylaws be amended to allow this?

I disagree with Godelfan. There are so many contradictions in your organization's bylaws that I don't see how they can be reconciled. You need to immediately move for the creation of a bylaws revision committee and get this fixed ASAP. That committee should codify whatever the standard, although illegal, practice has been under the current bylaws.

5 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

If this is so, I suggest that you read what is said on pages 565-591 very carefully, and then let us know what, if anything, you find there that you do not understand.

 

I have been doing that so far. They'e been a great resource! 

While I know that for motions requiring notice RONR says declaring one's intent at the previous meeting qualifies as notice, I am confused as to how members not in attendance become aware of this notice. Does RONR set forth a method, or should I specify one?

Also, what qualifies as "notice" (pg. 575 lines 6-7) regarding officer vacancies? Do I need to define that too?

14 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

Is there some part of your bylaws that that requires the secretary to distribute draft minutes?   If not, Is it your expectation that the language above would create that requirement?

What if the next meeting is a special meeting, at which the secretary would presumably not be distributing draft minutes (unless you forgot to include that exception in your bylaws.  Or perhaps forgot to define special meetings at all?

Was there something wrong with the previous notice requirements in RONR that you think needs fixing?

I'm actually drafting the bylaws right now.

Should I not mention notice at all and leave this entirely to RONR? I just want to make sure that every member knows when notice is given at a meeting, even if they're not at that particular meeting.

1 hour ago, Kim Goldsworthy said:

A1.) Why would you duplicate what is already clearly written in the parliamentary authority? For what purpose would be the redundancy?

A2.) Your proposal turns the single-action of Robert's Rules of Order, into a triple-action series of steps. -- Why the extra steps? Why the extra paper? Why the extra parties involved?

To what end is the stretching-out of the process?

When you put it like that, it does sound pointless. Could you point to the part of RONR that defines prior notice?

6 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

I think the most concise form would be in the tinted pages, Table II., under the column Vote Required for Adoption

Thank you. Should prior notice should be defined in an organization's bylaws? If so, would "announced at the previous general meeting and distributed to the membership with the draft meeting minutes by the secretary" be appropriate?

Including motions that require prior notice under some circumstances, such as amending the special rules of order.