Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Atul Kapur

Members
  • Content Count

    1,793
  • 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. A "unanimous written consent" is an instrument often authorized in laws that apply to corporations, and perhaps your property owners association. It is not found in RONR.
  2. You have repeatedly been told that this is incorrect. It is only unclear to you. Repeating the facts that you reject would be futile.
  3. RONR assumes that members have all the rights of members. "A member of an assembly, in the parliamentary sense, as mentioned above, is a person entitled to full participation in its proceedings, that is, as explained in 3 and 4, the right to attend meetings, to make motions, to speak in debate, and to vote." RONR (12th ed.) 1:4 (emphasis in original) RONR has no general rule on rights of members who do not have all of those rights, saying only, "Some organized societies define additional classes of 'membership' that do not entail all of these rights." Ibid. So you will need to consult y
  4. Under RONR, you present each name in the order they were proposed and the first proposal which receives a majority vote fills the blank. There is also an option to conduct the vote by ballot (12:103). Also pay particular attention to 12:104
  5. Agreeing with Mr. Elsman, RONR (12th ed.) 50:30 is the paragraph which supports his answer. Off the top of my head, there are no other presidential appointments that continue across administrations. However, that doesn't mean that the standing committees are vacant the day the presidential terms change. Paragraph 50:29 says, "The members of the old committee continue their duties until their successors are chosen."
  6. Retroactivity is a novel concept, that I also disagree with. As usual, I come with an analogy. Let's say that the bylaws allow the society's president to hire an assistant but prohibit the president from hiring their spouse as that assistant. The president hires their spouse on Sept 1. The president proposes and the society adopts on November 1 a bylaws amendment to remove the prohibition. Are you, @J. J., saying that if the bylaws amendment says "effective Aug 31 of this year" that the president did nothing incorrect? Does that mean that disciplinary action could not be taken against the
  7. I contend that no member was absent when the rules were suspended, that is, when the motion to suspend the rules was adopted. That motion was validly adopted and is still in force until the end of the meeting. Absentees do not have the right to prevent the assembly from taking a decision that the absentee disagrees with. They have the right that such action cannot be taken without the absentee being aware of it, either because notice was given (as per my analogy above) or because there were no absentees when the action, the adoption of the motion, occurred.
  8. RONR doesn't allow you, chair, to cancel a meeting that's been scheduled.
  9. As @George Mervosh replied to a similar question: in this thread:
  10. This is an interesting question. I suggest that they do not have a valid claim because they are absenting themselves with full awareness beforehand of the motion and its effects. It's not just their absence that gives them a claim, it's their absence without being made aware of the matter to be proposed. Let's say that someone gave notice of motion to amend the bylaws to reduce quorum to a majority of the entire membership. Any members who chose not to attend--or even those who are unable to attend--the next meeting where the amendment is adopted have no claim that their rights are b
  11. Mr. Honemann understood my point very well. I introduced the concept of dilatoriness as a way to explain why I thought that your position was untenable because, under your interpretation, the motion would be frivolous as it would have no real effect. Since your position appears to be immune to argument (or, at least, this one), I will take Mr. Honemann's advice and not pursue a futile effort further.
  12. Mr. Honemann has correctly and concisely summarized my position, which was intended to support the answers: Yes No.
  13. Yes they were. In fact, every member was present when the action was taken. The action was to suspend the rules and reset quorum for the duration of the meeting. As presiding officer, I would rule that motion not in order because it would be frivolous, similar to the motion in your original post with your interpretation.
  14. No. They were present when the decision was made. They heard and were aware that the motion was to be in force until the meeting was adjourned. The idea that one person's leaving would end the suspension gives, in effect, one person a veto over a decision taken by a 2/3 vote. That doesn't seem to be an appropriate balance of rights. The effect would be that quorum is one-third of the membership as long as 100% of the membership is present but automatically becomes a majority as soon as one person departs. That sounds pretty dilatory to me as the result is the same whether the
  15. Well if the total membership of the assembly is somehow less than the quorum specified in the organization's rules, then how was this motion allowed? I don't think that it could be considered as taking measures to obtain a quorum, as it is a motion to change quorum rather than achieve it. And if you say that it is in order, then it is actually a motion to suspend the rules and set quorum as 100% of the membership, no matter what it actually says, if the answer to J.J.'s original question is different than what Mr. Martin and I have said.
×
×
  • Create New...