Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Atul Kapur

Members
  • Posts

    2,279
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Atul Kapur

  1. Who arrived at that conclusion? The board. It may have decided informally, but it is still a decision. For example the conclusion that "Tina will research the options and report back at the next meeting" is a decision -- even if arrived at informally -- as much as the formal motion at the next meeting to choose option B of the ones Tina presented. Mr. Katz' and my point is that these are both actions of (= "decisions made by") the board, whether that was reached informally or by a formal motion. This is in contrast to your definition of "action" as only referring to a final decision.
  2. Yes. RONR (12th ed.) 45:5 See FAQ #1. The president votes when their vote can affect the result, as in the situation where their vote creates a tie.
  3. I can see that rationale for a motion to censure. But I can see having a lack of confidence in a policy. Or you could resolve it by rewording the motion to say that you "disagree with" the policies and procedures or "have no faith/belief" that they will be effective in dealing with the health and safety issues or call upon the administration to work with your organization to develop effective policies and procedures to replace the ones that currently exist or a lot of other ways to express similar ideas. BTW, under RONR parliamentarians don't have the authority to rule motions out of order. They can advise the presiding officer and the presiding officer would make the ruling, subject to appeal.
  4. In RONR, the "fact finding session" is a trial. The accused is entitled to be present and make a defence at the trial, but leaves after closing arguments are made. Read §63 very carefully, as the procedures are very detailed.
  5. RONR says that rules within the bylaws cannot be suspended except if they provide for their own suspension (as yours do, so there isn't a conflict) or the rule within the bylaws is in the nature of rules of order. RONR (12th ed.) 25:7 What is your rationale for proposing to delete this provision?
  6. RONR (12th ed.) 45:56 says, "It is a 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 in a regular or properly called meeting, although it should be noted that a member need not be present when the question is put." Sounds like the vote was completed, 3-2 ("current president arrived after the vote") See 45:9 regarding Time Limits on Efforts to Challenge, Retake, or Change a Vote.
  7. See 46:40 regarding acclamation and 46:44-45 regarding completion of an incomplete election. In fact, all of §46 is worth reading and will likely have other information relevant to the details of your situation.
  8. If you are asking whether the motion has to go back to the membership to be rescinded or amended, the answer is yes unless some other body, such as the board, has the authority to act counter to a decision of the membership. That Authority would need to be explicitly stated somewhere, preferably in your governing documents oh, because it goes against the general rule in RONR.
  9. I (and presumably others) didn't say anything because Mr. Martin answered your post accurately. I will reinforce his point by, not only saying that it may be desirable, but by recommending that you do this. Also, There is no item for "old business" in RONR's standard order of business. If you think it is worthwhile to bring this motion up, you can do it under New Business (unless, as Mr. Martin also said, your organization has rules about items needing to be listed on the agenda).
  10. You declare the nominees elected by acclamation. The election is still incomplete, as apparently you have a third position but no nominee. You should complete this election as soon as possible, likely your next meeting. But it's not an all-or-nothing situation, so you should elect as many people as you have nominees.
  11. A lot depends on what your bylaws do say. I would look to see what they say regarding the role of the vice president and about filling vacancies on your board.
  12. Yes, it does. See §57, particularly 57:6-8.
  13. Yes: "In any event, no action of the board can alter or conflict with any decision made by the assembly of the society, and any such action of the board is null and void (see 56:41 and 23:9). Except in matters placed by the bylaws exclusively under the control of the board, the society’s assembly can give the board instructions which it must carry out, and can rescind or amend any action of the board if it is not too late (see 35). It should be noted, however, that exactly the opposite condition prevails in connection with boards of business corporations, in which the board has exclusive power and authority to operate the business." RONR (12th ed.) 49:7
  14. Salut, R.W., et bienvenue. Are you now planning on having bylaws in both English and French? It sounds like this will be a full revision, rather than just some amendments. So, yes, it will likely be useful to do it seriatim. The advice about "how to encourage ordinary congregation folk to sit through a seriatim reading" is to not do that — or, at least, not to attempt to do the explanation and the business all in one setting. Revisions are often complicated and many members will have questions. You should consider having at least one explanation session.
  15. This makes no difference. The rule applies to anyone on the committee. As an ex-officio member, the president is on the committee, whether he participates or not and whether it is a standing or ad hoc committee. Leaving you with the question Mr. Mervosh asked:
  16. You are welcome, but please do not take that as the final word. I should have made clear that you should confirm this with someone knowledgeable about the statutes that applies to your organization.
  17. Then please help me understand why the motion worded as you suggest doesn't fall afoul of 10:11. In the absence of a default requirement to conduct an induction process, what purpose is served by adoption of such a motion?
  18. In the hopes that it is helpful (and that my analysis is correct), the restriction cited, and the reply to the OP is regarding debate. Assuming notice is not a requirement, an amendment to the pending motion could properly cover "language on the document that did not have proposed revisions" and that language would then be germane to the amendment. In fact, an amendment to the pending motion could change it to a motion to rescind the entire document (see 35:11). Debate on the amendment could then go into the merits of any part of the document.
  19. And, if the chapter defeats the motion, would they then have to conduct an induction process? Are you seeing that as a default requirement in the information the OP has provided?
  20. I definitely agree that "upon a proper motion" is unnecessary and confusing. I have less problem with the other phrase, if that meeting serves some purpose for your organization. Some organizations hold a "joint meeting" of the outgoing and incoming members of the board. This is an opportunity for the outgoing directors and officers to hand over relevant documents to their successors, do the paperwork to transfer signing authority for bank accounts, etc. I do see a rationale for an objection to the particular phrase used: there are not "the old Board and the newly elected Board". There is only the board. The term of some or all of its members is ending, but there is still just the board of the organization.
  21. I have seen the term "casting vote" defined in statute as the chair having a second vote in the case of a tie. Your use of the term suggests that such a statute applies to your organization. This is a very different approach than RONR's, which Mr. Katz has stated above.
  22. The preferred abbreviation is RONR. Or were you looking for the angry canine version?
  23. Volunteering (the other name for self-nomination) is not mentioned either way in RONR. So it is not prohibited.
×
×
  • Create New...