Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Atul Kapur

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Atul Kapur

  1. In a way. A member who feels that the rules are not being followed can raise a point of order (if they are unsure, they can raise a parliamentary inquiry). The chair would either rule the point "well taken" (i.e., the rules are not being followed and that will be corrected) or "not well taken" (the rules are being followed). Two members who disagree with the ruling may appeal (and second) the ruling of the chair. See RONR (12th ed.) §23 for more details on point of order and §24 for appeal.
  2. That is not the purpose of minutes. You are free to communicate your thoughts to the membership, but the minutes are not the appropriate tool to do that.
  3. or if the body that adopts the budget delegates this authority to another body, such as the executive board.
  4. Again, it will be your bylaws that will tell you whether you can require the vice president position to be filled at tonight's meeting and other details of the procedure. If you are filling a vacancy rather than, for example, appointing a person to start a term as part of the duties of a board at its first meeting after an annual meeting, then you should be aware that RONR (12th ed.) 47:57-58 say
  5. Do your bylaws have provision for a vice president? In other words, are you trying to fill a vacant position or create a new office? If the former, then you need to check your bylaws to see who has the authority to fill vacancies and you likely have to give notice (you can't just do whatever you want and spring it on the rest of the board). If you have no presiding officer, RONR states that he secretary calls the meeting to order and presides over the election of a chair pro tem. But have a good read of your bylaws first to confirm who does what and how.
  6. That is not what RONR says. The power for the committees to act on behalf of the board would need to be specified in your governing documents.
  7. I hear that they can be even more conviction-rattling if they are fishing off the boat.
  8. As Guest Paul said he could not make heads or tails with 46:45, I will try to paraphrase and give an example in the hopes it will help. The election is incomplete. There is a vacancy. Whoever is empowered to fill the vacancy can do so. If the executive board has that power, it can fill the vacancy. However, the body that elects that office has the opportunity to complete the election, all the way until the end of the term. If it completes the election, the person elected replaces the vacancy-filler. Assume a society has a general membership meeting every month. The Januar
  9. Tim, I am glad that you are clearer; but your last comments have me a bit confused. But I do not see how that conviction matches with your earlier support for the primary amendment to strike out "Charity B" and insert "Charity C."
  10. I have considered 12:28(4) to require that at least one adjacent word be included in the strike-out. The motion here is simply to strike out exactly those words that were inserted ("Charity B"). More generally, I appear to be in the minority, but I would consider the question to be "Which charity should we donate to?" Under that interpretation, I believe that I would require a motion to reconsider the initial motion to strike out and insert, then accept a secondary amendment to strike out B and insert C (or to create a blank). That would be how I would apply 12:25.
  11. Please explain the difference between having a basic right that you are prohibited from exercising and not having that right
  12. I want to reinforce a point touched on in the previous replies: Because this is government body, you need to carefully check (or have your legal counsel carefully check) whatever statute or regulation or other governing document it is that says these two members are prohibited from voting because of nepotism. First, to see if they actually are prohibited from voting. Second, to see if that document addresses the question of whether they count for quorum. For example, in my province, the act that governs municipalities gives a detailed definition of conflict of interest, describes in detai
  13. The meeting could adopt a motion to do so, it would require a majority vote. I strongly recommend that you do not do this. I also endorse Mr. Mervosh's suggestion.
  14. This is common. Those who are running for the director positions can prepare by, for example, speaking with current and previous directors. The nominees may speak at the board meeting to encourage others to vote for them.
  15. From the context, it appears that you mean that this would also apply to a motion to publish part or all of the minutes of any and all board meetings that were not held in executive session, i.e., a standing rule. But I don't want to assume.
  16. Apparently, there was still room for interpretation and error. Mr. Martin has made explicit what I was thinking and I would follow what he has written, and not what Guest Puzzling has suggested.
  17. There is no requirement in RONR for a nominee to accept their nomination. Rules of eligibility will be found in your own governing documents (bylaws and rules).
  18. Following Mr. Katz's logic, you have two subcategories under each of Standing Rules and SRO: "General Meetings" & "Board"
  19. So, unless your bylaws prohibit floor nominations, you should do that. By the way, do your bylaws prohibit write-ins?
  20. Yes, except that the parliamentary authority specifically states and resolves that particular Catch-22 for conventions, in 59:10 (" before a convention can transact any other business, it must officially form itself into a single voting body") and 59:11-13. There is no such resolution to be found that would allow an inquorate body to "form itself" into a quorate one.
  21. Unless your bylaws specify a particular edition of Robert's Rules, yes. See p. vii which answers your question.
  22. I didn't say that. I said, quoting and citing RONR, that if they had the 2/3 support they could follow the strategy in 12:105 of ordering a vote on the motion without filling the blank. That saves time. And, given the first sentence of 12:105, how do you suggest that the opponents force a vote on the motion before the blank is filled? Other than by ordering the previous question?
  23. RONR (12th ed.) 12:105 answers your question: "Normally, blanks in a pending motion should be filled before the motion itself is voted on." The same paragraph also shows how those who are against donating anything to the charity can proceed, if they can get a 2/3 vote to support them. "However, if the pending motion is included in an adopted order for the Previous Question, that order must be carried out even if the blank has not yet been filled—and even if no suggestions have been offered (note, however, that a reasonable opportunity to make suggestions must always be given; see 12
  24. A point of order must be raised in a timely manner (before any other business has begun); with the only exception if there is a continuing breach. There are five categories of continuing breach, listed in 23:6. Specifically to elections, 46:49 lists other examples of continuing breaches and (c) may apply here "If the votes of nonmembers or absentees in the election affect the result, action has been taken in violation of the fundamental principle of parliamentary law that the right to vote is limited to the members of an organization who are actually present at the time the vote is taken.
  25. The discussion above has focused on election issues and skimmed over this part. A point of order should have been raised at the time. It is now too late to raise a point of order regarding this (but not too late to learn the lesson to not do this again), except in the circumstances that Mr. Martin has explained above.
  • Create New...