Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Atul Kapur

Members
  • Content Count

    1,362
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

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. I agree that interpretation of your bylaws is up to your organization. FWIW, my interpretation (reading it in a way that makes everything make sense when read together, as per Principle of Interpretation 2 in RONR 11th ed., p. 589) I read it to say that you have four different pathways to terminate a membership. Two different bodies could do it: A) two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of the full Board of Directors OR B ) a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of votes cast by the Active and Life members in attendance at a special or annual meeting of the association for which a quorum is present and either of them can do it on one of two grounds: i) for cause by disciplinary proceedings OR ii) for violation of the Code of Ethics of the association So the four pathways are A/i, A/ii, B/i, and B/ii. I further read the bylaws to define "for cause" in pathways A/i or B/i as "Any behavior that injures the good name of the association, disturbs its well-being, or hampers its work is subject to disciplinary action." [taken from 5.1.3] I don't see that you need to go through the discipline committee if you are invoking ground (ii), the violation of the Code of Ethics. In that situation, I agree with Mr. Martin in his first response, that the decision on whether the code has been violated would be the opinion and judgement of the body making the decision, whether (A) or (B). BTW, I presume you actually have a Code of Ethics and that the items listed in the 5.1.3 don't appear in that code. Otherwise (i) and (ii) are redundant. Your Discipline Committee appears to have the functions of both the investigation committee and the trial committee that are described in RONR 11th ed., pages 656-669. Your bylaw 5.1.3, in fact, appears to be a slightly reworded quote from p. 669, lines 10-36, which describes a "Committee on Discipline" that can have both functions. To summarize by answering your original questions: Yes. This is pathway A/ii B/ii The members of the board make that decision for themselves. A/ii or B/ii do not require the involvement of the discipline committee
  2. Thank you, Weldon (speaking for all of Canada 😉)! Looking forward to visiting each other in person again. And an early Happy Independence Day! Y'all stay safe, please.
  3. And then what? Is this a lifetime limit? Are they able to run again for a position one year later? Do they have to wait 2 years? Note that I'm not asking these questions to be mean or to poke fun. They are things that you should consider before you adopt these finally. Does this mean the others are unprincipled? Or did you mean to say that the president is the principal executive officer? Based on the excerpt here, I would not consider any of the people filling these positions as being officers or directors.
  4. In the hope that this may help: The underlying assumption in RONR is that a member of a body has all the rights of membership in that body, no matter how they became a member of that body. So, for example, an ex-officio member of the board has all the same rights as any other member of the board, including the right to vote.
  5. I I think it is clear that cumulative voting is a continuing breach since it violates the fundamental principle of parliamentary law of one person, one vote. After that has been determined, I believe the standard is whether the breach could have affected the result of the election. In this case, it sounds like it definitely could have done so.
  6. Except that "the Good of the Order often involves no business or motions" (RONR 11th ed., p. 362, lines 14-15) I draw the distinction because "any other business" clearly indicates that business can be conducted.
  7. Are you specifying that the purpose of the special meeting is to decide issues arising from the election?
  8. To steal a common response on this forum: "They're your words -- you tell us." 😉
  9. Whether a particular situation qualifies as an emergency is a question that the members will answer by their vote on whether to suspend or not. If a member doesn't think this is an emergency, then that member should vote no, denying the unanimous vote required. Mr. Martin has described the rule in RONR that you suspend the rules for a particular purpose (eg: to nominate and elect a person who would otherwise not be qualified for a particular office). Once that purpose is met, the suspension is ended. The Section 2 that you quoted appears to have that intent, but it is not as well worded as RONR and I suggest you replace it. For example, the section of the bylaws regarding qualification for office is effectively suspended for as long as that person is in the office. The current wording could be interpreted as expiring once the person is elected (the immediate action) but ignoring the time they are in the office. Please note that I am not signalling that I think this is a good idea, overall. I share the misgivings that others have written above. I'm just limiting myself to comments on the specific wording you have given.
  10. The ellipsis was used to remove a nonrestrictive phrase and clarify that one can reserve, or devote, an entire meeting to a subject.
  11. All of them. I would (hesitantly) say that it could adopt such a motion because that would be the same as making the Report of the Special Committee the special order for the meeting and I do not see how it's effectively different. And making an item the special order can dispense with the order of business. "A matter can be made the special order for a meeting if it is desired to reserve an entire meeting . . . for the consideration of a single subject." p. 187, ll. 33-35 I await hearing why the assembly can achieve the same goal one way but not the other.
  12. While Mr. Gerber needs absolutely no assistance in this argument, I can't help but notice that Mr. Elsman is using arguments about the privilege and rank of the motion to adjourn versus the main motion to adjourn at a future time; but the discussion is about the priority of the order to adjourn at a set time. These are two separate things in my mind and Mr. Gerber has already explained, "the adjournment is treated like an order of the day for that time, but having higher priority even than a special order."
  13. Doesn't p. 372, ll. 19-22 say that an agenda that conflicts with the existing order of business (by, say, omitting New Business) can be adopted by a two-thirds vote?
  14. Guest Bruce, this forum prefers you post your question as a new topic, rather than adding to previous one, even if related. BTW, No. More detailed answer if you post as a new topic.
×
×
  • Create New...