Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by user

  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
  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 so
  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 c
  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 someth
  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
  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?
  10. I did read through 43:29 before, but that seems to assume the chair has someone else he can turn the position over to. 47:11 makes mention of the chair being vacant, so I assume, in the worst case the chair can unilaterally decide to vacate the chair without turning the position over to someone else. Then I suppose if nobody else wants to be the chair (because they want to participate in debate), the assembly will have to “declare the chair vacant and proceed to elect a new chairman.” Does that sound correct?
  11. Ok, got it. Just wondering, is it possible for the chair to choose to relinquish the chair without a new chair being named?
  12. Yes, but what if the vice president wants to participate in debate? The bylaws don't say anything about whether the chair is restricted to members of the organization, so I suppose we could find an outside chair. However, what if it's more of a spur of the moment kind of thing where the chair wants to participate in debate, but nobody else in the assembly wants to take over the chair position?
  13. What if the chair wants to temporarily step down so he can participate in debate & vote on an issue like everyone else, but nobody else wants to be chair because they all also want to participate in debate and vote? Thanks
  14. What if the organization is holding elections at our annual meeting and one of the officers uses his report time to subtly campaign for a candidate? It seems a bit unfair since not everyone gets time to present a report. Is that a violation of the rules? What should one do?
  15. Thank you! Regarding your comment stating some combinations would be borderline absurd, what if there are multiple vice president offices where each vice president is in charge of a specific area. Would you still consider it absurd to hold the president role and one of those several vice president roles? If so, why?
  16. Assuming the bylaws do not prohibit it, is there anything in Robert's Rules of Order that prohibit a member from running for and being elected to more than one officer position? Thank you!
  • Create New...