Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Drake Savory

Members
  • Content Count

    83
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Is that bylaw provision even (parliamentarily) legal? Isn't it a violation of basic Parliamentary Law to restrict a member's right to vote unless under discipline? Are bylaws provisions allowed to violate Parliamentary Law?
  2. If the bylaws committee is helping the member write up the amendments to be offered up when the motion is taken from the table then it would be appropriate. If they are rewriting the document that currently lies on the table then George is correct as the proposed bylaws belong to the assembly and not the bylaws committee.
  3. It's not a Rule of Order if it never passed. I'm not convinced it was ever passed and would encourage the OP to quote the rule as written to us.
  4. If it is a policy (and not a rule) then I would argue the motion passes the first time and further readings are out of order. I was in an organization that had the policy (never passed as a rule, a sort of "gentlemen's agreement") that any motion made would be postponed as an "action item" for the next meeting. That ended pretty quickly when I asked to see where the rule was written.
  5. A president serves as ex officio committee member. They choose to debate and vote on a proposed motion that the committee wants to make to the general assembly. Later, the President is chairing the general meeting and the committee makes the motion. In the name of impartiality since the President qua committee member has made their view known and taken a position on the motion, should they pass the gavel to the Vice-President until the motion is disposed of?
  6. I believe the rationale is that a previous session cannot force the current session to take certain actions. I'm sure other will have a much better way of explaining this but in your case the current session has the right to not consider item #2 in its meeting - even if it ends up killing the motion.
  7. Blame Jim Wright. IIRC it is because the PSC does not have the legislative power that a standing committee has.
  8. I'm not 100% sure about that. If the bylaws are poorly worded, specifically a person elected serves a two-year term with no reference to a person elected midterm only is elected to complete that term, the isn't the VP in this case elected to a full term?
  9. Two questions here methinks: Do they typically? No. Can they? I suppose they could and one could argue that Special Orders of the Day where the motion is already known (such as a postponed motion) could be written out on the agenda but other than a specialized case like this I think it would end up leading to problems.
  10. Is it possible for a committee to enter a specific part of their report into the minutes or would it have to be in the form of a motion? For example, the committee wants to record its appreciation for J. Doe into the assembly's records. Can it simply ask that it be done as part of it's report or would the committee chair as part of its report move that the assembly approve the committee's appreciation of J. Doe's work? If the assembly does not want it in the minutes, how would it go about stopping the committee from entering it into the minutes.
  11. So it seems the best strategy at this point is pray for a quorum.
  12. Like I said I totally agree. So maybe the question should now switch to - if the Council does not have a quorum and passes the amendment believing that it was acting properly would that constitute a continuing breach?
  13. Josh I agree that it is not a correct interpretation* but the membership feels it is and it is believed that the history of that clause of the bylaws was put in because the Council is often inquorate so that the lack of a quorum could not stop needed amendments (such as changing the quorum requirement but that is a whole different issue). *My interpretation is that the amendment passes with a majority of all members there so 15 yes, 12 no, 5 abstain means it does not pass. But then again it's up to the membership to interpret their bylaws n'est-ce pas?
  14. Without a quorum the answer to my question would be, "Of course not." However, the bylaws state All proposed amendments shall be submitted to the Representative Council for approval. Upon approval of the majority of the Representative Council present, the proposed amendment(s) shall be forwarded to ... This has been interpreted by the members that although lacking a quorum the RC can still approve a proposed amendment to the membership by majority vote (although I think it's a majority of all there voting and abstaining). Assuming that is a correct interpretation and an inquorate assembly can conduct business if permitted in the bylaws and it is not a violation of Parliamentary Law, then the question is can the assembly then make subsidiary motions such as Amend or Postpone? I think no and that the bylaws only allow an up and down vote but I know some in the organization will say any motions related to passing the proposed bylaws are in order so the amendment. What do you all say?
  15. p 290 Standard Characteristic 6 states a Request to be Excused from a Duty is amendable so why can't the assembly amend the effective date?
×
×
  • Create New...