Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Atul Kapur

Members
  • Content Count

    1,562
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About Atul Kapur

  • Rank
    PRP, CPP, formerly "Student"

Profile Information

  • Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. All board members have the right to attend meetings of the board, unless your bylaws say differently. Do you perhaps mean board members are not being allowed to attend meetings of the Personnel committee? Non-members of a committee do not have the right to attend a meeting of a committee. Do your bylaws allow email voting? If not, the votes are not valid, according to RONR.
  2. The general principle that is underlying Mr. J's questions are that the person or group who appointed/selected/elected the parliamentarian is the same one who can fill a vacancy or choose an interim parliamentarian. Your bylaws may allow a different group or person to do so (e.g., a board may have the authority to fill a vacancy in a position elected by the membership).
  3. This looks like a complete mess on many levels. This article has done some good research on parliamentary procedure and the bylaws of the Senate and Regents of U of M and even shows the relevant passage from the 10th edition. I am also disappointed to read the reports that the interim secretary "announced that the vote had failed to pass" but the chair "did not call the vote one way or another." It seems she is seeking legal advice. Following the links from the first article to the bylaws, it appears clear that abstentions should have been ignored.
  4. This procedural bylaw copies a provision of the provincial Municipal Act. I believe, but cannot quickly find, that there is a similar requirement in our Education Act, which governs school boards. As I understand it, the principle here is that the job of the municipal councillors is to make decisions, and to do so by voting at council meetings. This way a councillor has to make a decision or is deemed to have made a decision. There's no wriggling out by saying, "I didn't take a position," on a controversial topic. This only applies to recorded votes and there are exceptions for absences and any disqualifications from voting (e.g., pecuniary interest). Any member can demand a recorded vote if they want to ensure their colleagues go on the record. Other than in the case of elected representatives, I don't believe that it is more common up here in ordinary societies.
  5. After the result has been announced, the member can only request unanimous consent to change their vote. This must be done, "immediately after the chair’s announcement, before any debate or business has intervened." RONR (12th ed.) 45:9
  6. It is still the motion that the maker made, even if it has been amended along the way. It is similar to the limit of speaking twice to a question. After a motion has been amended, it is still the same question. You don't get another two opportunities to speak on the motion as amended.
  7. Depends on who the bylaws committee reports to and the process that is outlined in your current bylaws. If the bylaws committee is a committee of the membership, then it reports to the membership. It can, if it wishes, get the opinion and advice of the executive board (and I think that's almost always a good idea), but it is the report of the bylaws committee and the version that is presented to the membership should be what the committee approves. If the bylaws committee reports to the executive board, or if the executive board has to approve proposed bylaws amendments before they go to the membership, then the board's approval is enough and it does not have to be re-sent to the bylaws committee. You said that the board, "approved with several changes," so it sounds like the board has that authority. Is that what your bylaws say? If your bylaws are silent on that, then look at the part about the bylaws committee; who appoints its membership and who does it report to?
  8. I was hoping the 12th edition was going to expand Form and Example to include that other famous Al: "You're out of order! You're out of order! The whole trial is out of order! They're out of order!"
  9. Are you by chance Canadian? Up here, that's a common belief and some Canadian parliamentary authorities do prohibit "hostile" amendments. But RONR is clear that they are allowed, as long as they are not just a nullification of the motion (e.g., this would be out of order: I move that we amend the motion "That we do something" by inserting the word "not" between "we" and "do") Correct. Or you could do it in one step by using the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted to strike out "congratulate" and insert "censure."
  10. Most of the reasons are likely to be specific to the motion itself, so I won't speculate on that. However, it doesn't just have to be an expectation that the chair will rule differently. It may be a different presiding officer, a different group of attendees who will vote differently on appeal, the mover may have marshalled more evidence to make a better argument during the appeal, etc.
  11. Was this a ballot vote? If not, then it's not a problem (assuming, of course, that electronic meetings are authorized). Secrecy of the members' votes only occurs with ballot votes. RONR (12th ed.) 45:18 Parenthetically, this shows that your votes aren't secret. A Point of Order can be raised, and, "If there is any possibility that the vote(s) would have affected the outcome, the results of the vote must be declared invalid if the point of order is sustained." (ibid 23:8) Were any of the votes decided by a one-vote margin? I assume one of the two members could have validly voted. I'm not certain what a "mom-member" is. If you meant to say a non-member, then that person's vote should not have been counted and you can, again, raise a point of order, under the same provisions. But be careful in this case that the mom-member didn't just assist the member to cast their vote.
  12. Decisions that are decided by one vote maybe may be challenged. The board is under the authority of the association. So the next step would be to bring it to the attention of the general membership at a meeting. Do your bylaws allow for members to require a special meeting of the membership? Note that, normally, a point of order about a violation of the rules must be made in a timely manner. However, this is one of those exceptions to that timeliness rule because a violation of the bylaws is a continuing breach.
  13. I agree with Mr. Honemann because of the rationale given by Mr. Elsman: 4:2(2) and 4:9-12 are within a context where "one member:one vote" applies. This does not apply in the OP's situation. Generalizing (aka, "going where angels fear to tread"), my initial thoughts are that the answer would be similar if the bylaws allow proxy votes and one person had one or more proxies. But not weighted votes.
  14. RONR speaks only of ratifying an action. RONR (12th ed.) 10:54 - also see 10:55-57. Most actions cannot be amended retroactively. You refer to ratifying a document. What the body is being asked to do, from a parliamentary procedure point of view, is to ratify the action of adopting the document. A common example is the ratification of an agreement that the body's negotiation committee has reached with another organization. This is different than a committee recommending a document to the assembly for adoption, for example, a bylaws revision committee recommending a revised bylaws to the assembly. In this case the assembly can make whatever amends it wishes to the document proposed by the committee. Some details on the exact situation you are in would help determine which of these actually applies.
×
×
  • Create New...