Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Caryn Ann Harlos

Members
  • Posts

    556
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Caryn Ann Harlos

  1. I hear you but that is precisely what Parliamentary Law seems to countenance, however rare. Here is how I think of it, could be wrong. If the choice is between the organization ceasing to exist and following the bylaws as closely as possible in spirit, you choose the latter. It is also not mathematically impossible for a monkey to type out shakespeare. But it might as well be. Now that is an extreme example but I think we all know a functionally impossible existential situation when we see one.
  2. ===In another thread, you stated that the person who was going to be the meeting parliamentarian resigned. You would do well to engage a certified parliamentarian, or a registered one, to ease you through the process. It may be even easier to engage this professional to preside over the meeting where the revision is considered. An experienced chair can often expedite matters, protect members' rights, and provide explanations along the way. === SO MUCH THIS.
  3. Good question LOL. That is why I didn't put in the text, just the citation.
  4. The question literally says impossible. I know the answer substitutes in impracticable, but the questioner asked about an impossible situation and the answer conflated the two. It certainly was contemplating something beyond inconvenience like having to call a special convention (if allowed) or some other possible process, even if a PITA. But why wouldn't you draw that out to a similarly impossible or impracticable situation? I would though the bar would be pretty high. I think I would set it higher than the two years in the original question actually.
  5. Yes isn't there a principle there not bound to merely quorum? To any IMPOSSIBILITY.
  6. Though maybe out of scope here, apologies. We can talk offline if so.
  7. Does it? How so? just listened to a presentation I might have misunderstood as I am less than a novice on AISCP.
  8. Yes but you are not incorrect it is fantastically vague, and I prefer AIPSC on this which is different from RONR in that nothing in bylaws can be suspended. There is so much grey area on that topic. Some things are very clearly in the nature of a rule of order but others.... not so much.
  9. ==== "approved by a 2/3rds vote of the Members in Good Standing, present and voting, at a properly noticed meeting where a quorum is present." She wanted that wording (or similar) inserted at every single instance where we talk about voting. Basically quoting RONR everywhere in our by-laws. You are saying that is a bad idea? ==== HORRIBLE idea for all the reasons stated. I have a lot of concerns about A4. What does that even mean? Do you have a rule elsewhere explicating authorizing electronic voting and what kind? Rules for electronic items should be in a separate documents, policy manual, special rules of order etc. What does it mean to be "present" for instance? In email, are they presumed to be present? Or do a certain number need to vote to establish a quorum. I have seen both. I could not for the life of me tell you what A.4. even means.
  10. Thank you Mr. Martin I was not sure. Obviously I cannot comment further under advice of counsel.
  11. Ms.TC is not giving you the entirety of the details and is attempting to engage the members of this forum in something that is presently under litigation and handled by attorneys and presently under appeal before the 6th Circuit-though the parliamentary issues are not front and center, Trademark Law is (for those interested on their own it is Case No 23-1856, 6th Circuit). The questionable election issue was decided by internal dispute resolution processes as determined by the bylaws as the bylaws in this matter expclitly have a provision on how to handle and declared void - a whole new biennial convention and brand new elections have already come and gone. As one of the parties (Plaintiff/Appelleee), I will not be commenting further. She is a named party as well (Defendant/Appellant. JJ, well known in this forum, has been engaged by one of the parties. Mr. Martin previously was but I am unsure if that engagement is ongoing and that is his business.
  12. It seems to be like this is a special rule of order within the bylaws, but that Mr. Martin has hit upon the critical detail, it would be a special rule of order relating to the convention/election meeting which they themselves have to adopt. Not only be familiar with points of orders and appeals, but also putting the question from the floor.
  13. Thank you Joshua. We seem to be in agreement. You are familiar with organization. It will not surprise you to learn this discussion has been characterized as me advocating for removing delegates at any point for any reason, which is the opposite of what I believe. I came to here to know good rational answers for what principles of fairness already told me. Thank you for the discussion.
  14. Hi Josh I don't know if you saw my former question. i don't believe absent- as you say a later finding of disqualification (which isn't an issue in the organization I have in mind)- that delegates can be de-credentialed for "just any reason." That 99.999% of the time, they are seated. That it is an abuse of power to try to do that absent any discovery they are not a member under minimal bylaws requirements.
  15. Thank you Joshua, I think we are all on the same page. I have a related question but let me know if this should be a new thread because you raised a question on which i disagree with JJ. In seating new delegates, whether or additional or later new ones, must a challenge be rational, i.e. based upon qualifications? Or could an entire delegation be challenged on just any grounds at all, like all 100 Delegates from Constituent Unit X are ugly and are bringing down the average attractiveness percentage of the convention. My position is that the Constituent Unit has the right to send qualified delegates, ugly or not, and that any challenge to them needs to be based on RONR or the bylaws of the Constituent Unit or the Parent Organization. Thoughts?
  16. In the organization in view in the background of my question, it would be more than a slight difference since one delegation in particular is over 10% of the delegates. Others are close. A 10% swing is not slight.
  17. And what is there is NO question at all that they are qualified. That the attempted decredentialling is just nakedly a power move. And I think JJ is correct. The members of the assembly (i.e. the convention) are determined by adopting the credentials report.
  18. This question refers to a political party where credentialing can be contentious as noted by RONR. AFTER the credentials committee report and Delegate X is seated. Outside of a disciplinary proceeding (they are disruptive etc) can Delegate X be "unseated,"? Specifically can his credentialing be rescinded?
  19. But this section talks about its own interaction with specific bylaws... "when the bylaws don't require notice, but notice is given....." so it is not simply deferring to bylaws.
  20. I can see how it is supposed to refer to that. But that is not at all clear. And in fact talks about when bylaws do not require previous notice. These bylaws in question here do not "contain no provision relating to amendment." They have a provision. But no notice requirement. And this section is clear as mud in that situation.
×
×
  • Create New...