Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Atul Kapur

Members
  • Content Count

    920
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

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. No. The action is who the committee nominates.
  2. It is dangerous to make assumptions about law. Even worse to act on those assumptions without confirming. Even if the committee has to have minutes, RONR is clear that minutes should contain what is done, not how it is done. So, based on RONR, I wouldn't include all that detail in the minutes.
  3. Better tonight than at some unknown time in the future One of the reasons you hire a professional parliamentarian: either to avoid these issues or to have someone to blame. 😀 Good luck tonight. Let us know how it goes, procedurally.
  4. I have never heard that this is a "rule of thumb." Some statutes use this phrase in some of their sections to allow the bylaws to contain a different provision. But I have never heard that it is a blanket exemption. I believe that this is why Mr. Lages asked whether the statute you quote uses this language in reference to the section you are citing. You did not answer that question.
  5. Put it in writing for the other member to read and move it accurately (and, if you have time, write some talking points for them, too). Also, find another member to second the amendment.
  6. As you are already anticipating arguments about this potential ambiguity, fix it now to remove that ambiguity and make your intent explicit. Otherwise it will depend on whatever a majority of the assembly feels at the time the question is raised. I'm glad that you are (perhaps belatedly) reading the Sections on Bylaws and the Principles of Interpretation. I draw your attention to p. 589, lines 1-3, "The ambiguous or doubtful expression should be amended as soon as practicable." That time is now.
  7. " after nominations have been closed, voting for that office takes place, or nominations for the next officer called for by the chair" if voting for all positions takes place at the same time. In either case, voting only occurs after the nominations have been closed. (RONR 11th ed., p. 436, lines 24-26) So, even if the ballots had been distributed, you wouldn't have been able to cast yours immediately and just leave.
  8. Agreeing with Mr. Martin, I will just add that this is the procedure for any voluntary association. While I understand that academics may very well be less competent than the general population in many domains, 😁 I think that your association will be up to the task if required. Again, you should hire a professional parliamentarian to help you through that process.
  9. As a first step, maybe someone could speak with him and suggest that he get some training and/or assistance from a professional parliamentarian. Or even hire a meeting parliamentarian to assist him during the meetings.
  10. That may have been the intention, but we are told that the committee recommendation was defeated before the minority report was processed. That's what I meant by "irregular". So now we're trying to help Guest Casimir move forward, given the situation they are in now.
  11. I agree completely. I have been trying to explain the current situation in the posts above, but this is not a good way to run things. As one example of the problems you get into: the assembly has defeated a motion to codify a custom but hasn't replaced the custom. This will likely lead to much uncertainty at future meetings as to who is allowed to vote. (I'd say custom still stands, but your assembly may not feel that way), The way it was handled was irregular. Was the dissenter's proposal formally before the assembly and being debated when the meeting adjourned? If so, it sounds like you are dealing with it as a separate, original propsition and that it is properly "Unfinished Business" for the next meeting.
  12. As Mr. Honemann has said, if the motion is in contravention of your bylaws then it is null and void. You can raise a Point of Order at the next meeting. And, if you think the association was misled, then you can likely move to Rescind the motion which was adopted (there are some motions that cannot be rescinded). I, too, disagree that the Secretary "used Robert's Rules" to do anything improper. From your description she did not follow RONR. However, the book doesn't enforce itself. It requires a Presiding Officer and members who are knowledgeable about the rules within it. Fortunately, it doesn't take too long to learn a lot. Start with RONR In Brief. If many of your members are in the same boat, then you can hire a parliamentarian to assist the chair during the meetings and/or do some training with your assembly.
  13. Once debate starts, it is too late to challenge how the motion came before the assembly. The adoption of the motion to Reconsider and the reversal of the original motion are valid and stand as the judgement of the assembly. Practically, I don't see any harm in this outcome. The majority of the assembly wanted to Reconsider the original motion (after all, it was adopted) so if the Secretary was barred from making the motion, presumably someone else would have (this presumes that your rules were followed about timing of making the Reconsider motion). You did the right thing at the time to get clarification. You could have pushed the point, as explained previously.
  14. My answer assumed that these people were, as the last line of the OP says, "a brand new member". Mr. Elsman correctly brings up the question of when exactly the person becomes a member. The answer, hopefully, will be found in your bylaws.
  15. It is too late now to challenge the adoption of the motion to Reconsider and the reversal of the original motion. It is not clear from what you've told us whether a non-voting member can make motions in your organization (being deprived of one of the two rights doesn't necessarily mean that you are also deprived of the other). Even if the Secretary was not allowed to make the motion, the Point of Order had to be made at the time it was moved. It sounds like you made a Parliamentary Inquiry (asked a question) which the chair answered. If you wanted to push the point, you should have then raised a Point of Order that the Secretary was not entitled to make the motion. Presumably, the chair would have ruled your point "not well taken" (ruled against you) and you could have Appealed that ruling. But all this needed to occur before the motion was debated. Once debate started, it was too late to object.
×
×
  • Create New...