Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

user

Members
  • Posts

    78
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

user's Achievements

  1. Agreed. Though sometimes you're not totally sure if it violates the bylaws or not and would prefer to ask a question about it. Or sometimes you need clarification on how the bylaws pertain to this situation.
  2. I agree it likely doesn't matter too much. But my question would then be - where do we draw the line between Parliamentary Inquiry and Request for Information? I understand the previous example wouldn't directly be a violation of the bylaws since the comment was only made in debate. However, if it were a motion that potentially violated the bylaws (which would be out of order, correct?) and I want to ask about it, then that would clearly be on the side of Parliamentary Inquiry? For example, someone tries to make a motion to have an event in December, but I think that might violate the organization's bylaws, then I would raise a Parliamentary Inquiry and ask "doesn't the motion violate the bylaws since it states this event must be held in October?"
  3. Also to clarify, Parliamentary Inquiry doesn't necessarily need to be a procedural question, it could be any question about the bylaws and how it relates to the business at hand, right? For example, someone could make a Parliamentary Inquiry saying "A member stated in debate that perhaps we could hold the event in December, but don't the bylaws state that the event must be held in October?"
  4. If there's a pending motion on the floor, and someone says they plan on doing something that might conflict with the bylaws, is it more appropriate to raise a Parliamentary Inquiry or a Request for Information? Or are both completely appropriate for this? RONR 12th 33:3 says “A Parliamentary Inquiry is a question directed to the presiding officer to obtain information on a matter of parliamentary law or the rules of the organization bearing on the business at hand.” I ask this question because whenever I read about Parliamentary Inquiry, they always give examples of someone asking something like "is it in order to move xyz right now?" or some other procedural question answered in Robert's Rules of Order, but they generally don't give an example where someone asks about the organization's bylaws. Even here for example Robert's Rules for Making a Parliamentary Inquiry - dummies "You may have the sense that something isn’t being done according to Robert’s Rules..." but they don't mention anything about using Parliamentary Inquiry for something that potentially violates the organization's bylaws.
  5. I understand the book says you sit down when you're done speaking in debate, but many of us are conducting virtual Zoom meetings nowadays. After you're done speaking in debate is it appropriate to say "I yield the floor"? I see this term sometimes mentioned in RONR. I understand this does not yield any unexpired portion of my time to another member or reserve it for later (RONR 12th 43:10).
  6. I've seen this happen in two different situations (in different organizations), there were high conflict situations and the president basically just handed the chair position over to the parliamentarian so the parliamentarian could run the meeting. No motion for it or vote taken at all. In both situations, the president had a conflict of interest that prevented them from being neutral. One point of concern is whether this is acceptable if the parliamentarian is not a member of the assembly. What are the rules on this and how does this change things? I'm pretty sure just handing the chair over to the parliamentarian without a vote isn't the appropriate procedure? Though I assume if nobody complains, then it's acceptable by unanimous consent? Citations would be helpful. Thanks!
  7. If the chair gives the wrong answer to a parliamentary inquiry (or perhaps incorrectly states a rule in some other situation), is it reasonable to immediately raise a parliamentary inquiry (or perhaps a request for information) to correct the chair? Of course I would try to word my correction in the form of a question. For example, in a very simple situation, perhaps the chair is asked "how many members need to vote in favor for this motion to pass?" and the chair answers "if everyone votes, 5 members" (which is incorrect). Is it appropriate to raise a parliamentary inquiry and say something like "Since this is a majority vote, and there are 11 of us, if everyone votes, doesn't that mean 6 people would need to vote in favor?" While my simple situation might sound quite reasonable, do you think it's also reasonable to do it if the situation was more complicated and required citing rules? Should I raise a point of order directly after the chair's incorrect response to the parliamentary inquiry? What do you think the best thing to do is?
  8. There are a few things our organization has been doing for years. They were likely agreed upon by a past Executive Committee (maybe informally). None (or few) of us currently on the Executive Committee were involved in the decisions. They are so old, I have no idea of what the details were when they originally agreed to do these things. For some, I have no idea where they are in the historical meeting minutes, if they're in there at all. If we want to change some of these things, can we just make a regular main motion? Or do we need to follow the rescind/amend something previously adopted rules (i.e. two-thirds vote or previous notice, etc.)? If rescind/amend something previously adopted is required, do you really see in practice that people use them to change decisions that were made a long time ago? If we pass a regular main motion (majority vote and no previous notice) to change a decision that was made long ago, and nobody complains that we didn't use rescind/amend something previously adopted, is that ok?
  9. Candidates are allowed to give an election speech before the members vote. Let's say the opponent didn't show up (and therefore would not be there to give an election speech). Should the candidate who showed up be allowed to give an election speech?
×
×
  • Create New...