Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

user

Members
  • Posts

    78
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by user

  1. What if no motion takes place (because the person assumed we are not voting on this and that it's already set because we did it like this last year)? Would it be proper to just raise a point of order after they mention it (what if they mention it during a report)? Thank you
  2. I'm not talking about something in Robert's Rules of Order being violated. For example, maybe the bylaws states the organization must vote on having a certain number events in a year, however someone else assumes (maybe maliciously) that we are having a specific number of events that year without even having the vote take place. Do I raise a point of order to mention this?
  3. In RONR (12th Ed) 21:9, it says "If a board or committee meeting is adjourned without any provision having been made for future meetings, the next meeting is held at the call of the chairman." Additionally, as per RONR, it is my understanding that Executive Committees follows the rules of boards, not committees. The Constitution states the Executive Committee will hold meetings at least monthly at such hours it may determine. The Executive Committee agreed to hold meetings on the first Sunday of each month. Since it seems there is a provision made for a future meeting, does that mean the chair (the President) does not have the ability to call a meeting himself? There is a special meetings section of the Constitution, which says the President can call special meetings of this organization (but it doesn't explicitly say he can call special meetings of the Executive Committee - or does "of this organization" cover the organization as a whole and its Executive Committee?). Does it say anywhere in RONR that the chair of the Executive Committee gets to call meetings whenever he wants? Can he call a special meeting of the Executive Committee? Thank you!
  4. Also, the chairs of these committees often bring the decisions/recommendations of their committees to the Executive Committee meeting for ratification. Hypothetically, if the VP chairing his committee didn't like an official vote and decision that took place in his committee, since the VP is the one presenting those decisions/recommendations to the Executive Committee, is he obligated to go with what his committee voted on? Couldn't he use his voice at the Executive Committee to persuade them to override a decision made in the committee he chairs?
  5. On our Executive Committee, there is a VP. This VP has his own committee that he is the chair of. The committee he is the chair for is a bit less formal and its members are not well versed in parliamentary procedure. I've noticed the meetings of that committee act more like meetings would in the business world. The VP who runs that committee basically gets final say on things. I've never seen a vote take place. No complaints so far. Is this ok? Can they decide to do that? Is there a name or official section in RONR that describes this?
  6. I mean - where does it usually say we're required to follow parliamentary procedure? Just because the constitution or bylaws say RONR is the authority on parliamentary procedure, I feel that doesn't explicitly mean we have to follow parliamentary procedure itself.
  7. Our organization's constitution only states that RONR is the authority as to parliamentary procedure. It doesn't mention RONR or parliamentary procedure anywhere else. I'm just unclear where it says we're required to use parliamentary procedure for decision making. Does it usually explicitly state that in the constitution/bylaws? Or does it say it somewhere else? I'm just thinking legally, shouldn't it explicitly say somewhere that you must use RONR/parliamentary procedure for official decision making? Or are all organizations legally required to use parliamentary procedure already, and they just need to define who the authority on parliamentary procedure is?
  8. If you work at a company that holds meetings, those meetings clearly don't follow parliamentary procedure. What is the formal name for that kind of meeting? And by comparison, by what name should I use to refer to meetings that follow parliamentary procedure? Thanks
  9. Our organization has a Constitution. We cannot modify that Constitution since it is provided by our parent organization and there is a clause in there that says only they can modify it. The Constitution does not have a clause that allows for proxy voting. We want to allow for proxy voting. As per RONR 11th Ed page 428, "Proxy voting is not permitted in ordinary deliberative assemblies unless the laws of the state in which the society is incorporated require it, or the charter or bylaws of the organization provide for it" We don't have any document called the bylaws right now. Can we create bylaws to allow for proxy voting? If yes, what is the procedure? Majority vote? Thanks
  10. Unfortunate that RONR isn't more explicit about this. However, I agree with the consensus.
  11. I was hoping for it to be a little more explicit, but this is good info. 👍
  12. 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?
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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"
  16. 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."
  17. 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?
  18. 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.
  19. 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?
  20. 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.
  21. Just wondering, is there a part of the book that says non-members don't have the right to speak during debate?
  22. 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.
  23. 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?
  24. 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...