Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

user

Members
  • Content Count

    43
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Unfortunate that RONR isn't more explicit about this. However, I agree with the consensus.
  2. I was hoping for it to be a little more explicit, but this is good info. 👍
  3. They could be allowed to make motions, correct? Page 263 explicitly says you can't suspend the rules to allow them to vote and also says you can suspend the rules to allow them to speak in debate, but it doesn't explicitly mention allowing them to make motions. Or does it say that somewhere?
  4. When you say "can be allowed to participate," just to clarify, this would require the members to vote to Suspend the Rules so that they can participate, correct? Because otherwise nonmembers can't participate.
  5. So in the context of a committee, in the quote where it says "organization," that is referring to the committee? Maybe you can see how this would get a little confusing to outsiders? My problem is when trying to cite these rules to people who are not familiar with RONR. Is there something I can cite that clearly says that "member" or "nonmember" refers to the body that is meeting? In the quote I provided, it specifically uses the word "organization" and this makes it even more ambiguous to outsiders who may interpret "organization" as the parent organization rather than the committee.
  6. How about this from page 648: "Any nonmembers allowed in the hall during a meeting, as guests of the organization, have no rights with reference to the proceedings"
  7. I had thought of that actually, but that page keeps using the term "assembly" and as per page 489, "a committee is not itself considered to be a form of assembly."
  8. I cite a rule and say someone is a nonmember (not a member of the committee but they are a member of the organization). Then someone argues that the book is ambiguous because they are a member of the organization so they say that counts. Is there a place in RONR I can cite that will make this clear to them?
  9. Thanks everyone. I guess the main issue here was that nonmembers aren't supposed to speak in debate unless the committee voted to suspend the rules.
  10. I try to cite RONR sometimes, but when the book says "member," sometimes I get questioned on its ambiguity as to whether it's referring to a member of the committee or any member of the organization as a whole. Is there a citation in RONR that clarifies this?
  11. He invited some pretty vocal senior members who spoke during debate about their viewpoint on an issue. I think a vote would've gone a different way if it had not been for this.
  12. Just wondering, is there a part of the book that says non-members don't have the right to speak during debate?
  13. Yes, the bylaws say the executive committee meetings are open to any member. It doesn't say anything about invitations or notice for executive committee meetings. It does have rules for notification for changes in date/time/place for regular business meetings. It also has rules for special business meetings. The executive committee meetings are scheduled at a regular day of the week each month, however the meeting dates aren't specified in the bylaws (it just says the executive committee is required to meet at least monthly at a time and place it may determine). African or European? 😂 Nice RONR citation. Very good info regarding allowing members to speak.
  14. Actually our bylaws do allow for any member to attend executive committee meetings. However, the general membership usually would not know when the meeting is unless they were informed of it somehow. Does that change anything? Also wondering, what would happen in the situation of a regular business meeting where the president was bias in his invitations? Is that the same thing?
  15. We had an executive committee meeting where any member could attend. The president sent out invitations only to specific people from the general membership he wanted to invite. This is quite bias since many other members weren't even aware they could attend the meeting at all. The president allowed many of them to speak during debate at the meeting. I assume this is a violation of something? Anyone know what parts of RONR may cover impartial meeting invites?
×
×
  • Create New...