Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

George Mervosh

Members
  • Posts

    7,347
  • Joined

Everything posted by George Mervosh

  1. If this council is a government body, its solicitor should advise the council on this, since applicable procedural rules in statute or council's own rules may speak to the matter and they take precedence over the rules in RONR. If the rules in RONR control the matter, 2-1 is sufficient. Also, nothing in RONR would require a member to abstain from voting for a relative to fill the position in question.
  2. No. Unfinished business is defined and covered in RONR In Brief, in Chapter 2, C. 3. and in RONR (12th ed.), 41:21-26.
  3. Regardless of the size of the board, I maintain my position that he should not preside in this case. If, as Mr. Elsman suggests, this is a board that operates under the rules for small boards (RONR 12th ed., 49:21), then I respectfully disagree with him that the matter may only be discussed when a relevant main motion is pending. RONR (12th ed.), 49:21 4)
  4. At this point it is almost certain a motion to reconsider is not going to be in order given the timeframe required to make it. A previously adopted main motion that is still in effect may be rescinded or amended. See RONR §35 for full details. A motion that was defeated may be made again at any future session.
  5. Here is the rule in RONR - ""Whenever a motion is made that refers only to the presiding officer in a capacity not shared in common with other members, or that commends or censures him with others, he should turn the chair over to the vice-president or appropriate temporary occupant (see below) during the assembly's consideration of that motion, just as he would in a case where he wishes to take part in debate (see also 43:29–30). The chair, however, should not hesitate to put the question on a motion to elect officers or appoint delegates or a committee even if he is included." RONR (12th ed.), 47:10 Even though this is a discussion, rather than a motion pending regarding his conduct, my opinion is he should not preside. If other members will have an opportunity to speak to the comments, the chair is certainly able to participate in the discussion as well, and all members are bound by the rules of decorum. He absolutely should preside over an motion to adopt a standing rule on the matter because the rule would apply to all members, including him.
  6. There is no such right under the rules in RONR. The board decides this on their own. If this was a public body, the answer may be different.
  7. Here is the rule: "Whenever a motion is made that refers only to the presiding officer in a capacity not shared in common with other members, or that commends or censures him with others, he should turn the chair over to the vice-president or appropriate temporary occupant (see below) during the assembly's consideration of that motion, just as he would in a case where he wishes to take part in debate (see also 43:29–30). The chair, however, should not hesitate to put the question on a motion to elect officers or appoint delegates or a committee even if he is included." RONR (12th ed.), 47:10 So if the motion does not involve other members (except as noted above for commending and censuring him and others), but just the chair alone, he needs to relinquish the chair, yes.
  8. The quorum is still 6 unless the bylaws are amended to change it. It is not required to change it based on fluctuating membership numbers. If your group wants a quorum to be a majority of the entire membership, it can remove the quorum language altogether and RONR's default of a majority of the entire membership would be applicable. Normally that's not a wise idea in a larger society, but in your small group it might be a good fit. Your group can decide what is best.
  9. An amendment to the bylaws takes effect immediately upon it being adopted. It remains in full force and effect until it is rescinded or amended. Your board member is correct that the bylaws should be updated immediately to reflect the change from 3 years ago.
  10. Absolutely not and he won't find anything in RONR that even comes close to implying he does.
  11. This is a bit long but just a few points: 1) The procedural rules in RONR are not applicable prior to the meeting being called to order. 2) On a debatable motion, the chair must recognize the member who made the motion if that member desires to speak to it. See RONR (12th ed.), 42:9. 3) A non-member presiding officer has no right to speak in debate on a main motion that is before the assembly. It will require a suspension of the rules by a 2/3 vote for that to be permitted. See RONR (12th ed.), 25:9 n7. If he becomes a huge problem while presiding, a majority vote is all that is required to declare the chair vacant and elect a new chairman. See RONR (12th ed.), 62:10-11 and n4.
  12. Any member may call the meeting to order, then proceed directly to electing a chairman pro-tem and a secretary pro-tem. See RONR (12th ed.), 47:11 3). If a quorum is present the assembly can go about its order of business and complete the meeting. if no quorum is present, see RONR (12th ed.), 40:6-10.
  13. No, I'm not suggesting committees cannot suspend rules. If the bylaw states that their task is approving a plank (whatever that is), but did not provide the specific details Ms. Harlos cites in her initial post, rules of order relating to the approval of a plank could be suspended.
  14. What is the practical or procedural difference, if any, between the instructions given to this committee as to how it must consider these motions, versus instructions given to it as to how to consider a motion as discussed in 13:8 d, because I don't see how these instructions, no matter how given, are suspendable.
  15. Nothing in RONR requires that a motion be read aloud 3 times, or presented 3 times before voting on it. Check your bylaws carefully. There should be an article in them detailing exactly how to amend the bylaws. Your answer may be there.
  16. Here is a link to Mr. Elsman's reply, but of course you might want to read the whole thread. https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/34629-change-of-board/#comment-204784
  17. An exact quote from the bylaws would be nice, but I agree with J.J. here. We know that it is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that action can only be taken at a regular or properly called meeting, so saying "held at a meeting" is really nothing different at first blush. I don't think that at all precludes having a polling place outside of a meeting setting, but the results would certainly need to be declared at a regular or properly called meeting for them to be valid.
  18. Do your bylaws require a vote by ballot for elections, Guest Eileen?
  19. Thank you very much, especially for the added caution. Yes that proposed amendment seems very clear.
  20. When a motion to hold the elections by ballot is immediately pending, is it in order to offer an amendment that would provide an exception for uncontested offices? I'm trying to understand the scope of proper amendments for a motion related to the method of voting.
  21. Since you have not provided any specific facts, I would recommend a careful read of "Contesting the Announced Result of an Election." found in RONR (12th ed.), 46:48-50, particularly 46:49.
  22. 1) The proper method to try and overturn a ruling of the chair is to make an appeal. See §24 in RONR. 2) The President cannot cancel a meeting. The vice president, if there is one, should have taken over the meeting and presided over the remaining matters as long as a quorum was present. If there is no VP, the assembly would elect someone to preside. 3) See FAQ#20 elsewhere on this site regarding removal of an officer. There are also ways to simply remove him from presiding over the current meeting. Yours seems like a good candidate considering his actions.
  23. No. The action of accepting the resignation cannot be rescinded or amended. RONR (12th ed.), 35:6 c)
×
×
  • Create New...