Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Atul Kapur

Members
  • Content Count

    414
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Atul Kapur

  • Rank
    PRP, 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. Or, more simply, they could amend the bylaws to authorize a levy, including details of who can set and authorize a levy and how (which could include the provisions that the president originally thought applied, or subsequently thought applied, or some other provisions). No need to amend them back. "Members cannot be assessed any additional payment aside from their dues unless it is provided for in the bylaws." (p. 572) Once the bylaws are amended, the body that is authorized to set and authorize a levy can consider doing so.
  2. If there is a difference, it is that declaring the chair vacant could be confused with "permanent removal of the presiding officer and removal of authority to exercise administrative duties conferred by the bylaws." (p. 653) and that taking away the authority to preside is more specific.
  3. Agreeing with Guest Zev and Mr. Harrison, I think the rationale is well summarized a few lines further from your quote where it talks about the chair being able to "command the attention" of the assembly. If, in everyone's assessment, the technical facilities provide the chair with the ability to do that easily, you're well covered.
  4. Even the potential candidate can serve on the nominating committee. That is to say that, under RONR, a member of the nominating committee can be nominated. From your other post, it sounds like this committee considers applications and interviews candidates. In this situation, the person who applies should resign from the committee, or decline to join it if they know they're going to apply, but this is not required by RONR.
  5. I agree with points 1 and 2. 3. I see no need to change the term you are used to using. Your Special Rules of Order supersede RONR so you don't need to be bound by its word
  6. It doesnt say the member may only vote once. Say exactly what you mean.
  7. Read about it, but I don't think you could make a motion to remove the directors, or any particular director or officer, from office at this special meeting. You are only allowed to conduct the business that was specified in the notice of the special meeting. From the way you describe it, a motion to remove a / the director(s) would be beyond the terms of that notice.
  8. This would be a convention according to RONR: an assembly of delegates ... chosen, normally for one session only, as representatives of constituent units or subdivisions of a much larger body of people in whose name the convention sits and acts." (p. 7) Further on p. 7: " whenever the term 'majority of the entire membership' is used in this book, it means, in the case of a convention of delegates, a majority of the total number of convention members entitled to vote, as set forth in the official role roll of voting members of the convention."
  9. And the time to do that would be under New Business.
  10. Mr. Brown's comment made me re-read the OP. To be clear, Guest Ericka, the fact that the officer was appointed to fill the vacancy for one year, rather than elected, has nothing to do with my answer. It's entirely due to the length of time that the officer served in that first term - one year. If the officer had been appointed to fill a vacancy with two years left in that term (or any length more than half of three years) then that would have been considered a full term and he/she would not be eligible to be re-elected to another continuous term.
  11. That seems a little harsh when RONR specifically comments on this situation. Pages 574-5 state: "Since a reasonable rotation in office is desirable in almost all organizations, a section of this article may well provide that "No person shall be eligible to serve . . . consecutive terms [specifying the number] in the same office." For purposes of determining eligibility to continue an office under such a provision, an officer who has served more than half a term is considered to have served a full term in that office." (Emphasis added) It would appear that this officer who was appointed to fill the vacancy served less than half of that first term. So this officer would be eligible to serve another full term.
  12. Yes, it can be said about any item discussed on this forum. However, this is one of the more common examples where laws disagree with RONR, so I thought it might be useful to the OP, even if it isn''t to regular readers.
  13. It is too late to Reconsider the motion. The appropriate motion would be to Amend Something Previously Adopted. The motion can be moved by any member. If you give notice of the motion (by, for example, including The motion in the call of the meeting) it will take a majority vote to adopt. Without notice, it requires a 2/3 vote or a Majority of the Entire Membership.
  14. Under RONR, the board cannot override a decision made by the members. Your bylaws or any laws that apply to the organization may alter that relationship and you should check those.
  15. I didn't see anything in the OP that states that notice is required. It's usual (and the default in RONR) but the constitution doesn't have to require notice for its own amendment. RONR adds a majority of the entire membership as an allowable alternative. "at least notice and a two-thirds vote, which (with a vote of a majority of the entire membership as an allowable alternative) are the requirements for its adoption if such specification in the bylaws is neglected." (RONR p.592, lines 10-13)
×
×
  • Create New...