Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

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

RSW's Achievements

  1. Apologies - I was trying to edit the previous post and it posted a new one. I can't delete, so I'm editing it out.
  2. Sure, happy to clarify. I'm going to use "parent organization" for our parent group, and "subsidiary organization" for our group. There's a document referred to as a "constitution" for the subsidiary organization. The subsidiary organization has no separate bylaws. This constitution is provided by the parent organization, and accepting it is a requirement for our subsidiary organization's existence. It provides: The Annual Business Meeting isn't *our* group - it's the *parent* group. Elsewhere in the constitution it provides: Since that second provision is in the constitution, the constitution specifies that it can only be amended by the parent organization, and there's no exception for adjusting the quorum anywhere in the constitution, I think that leaves us stuck. Regarding Mr. Martin's very understandable question, the provision is also in the constitution:
  3. Okay....this is a bit complex, but hear me out. An organization is meeting, and they *frequently* don't make quorum. There are things they're *absolutely required* to do that they can't do, sometimes for months on end. The solution to this would typically be to adjust the quorum (per guidance in 40:3). The problem is, the quorum is set at 50% in the bylaws, and the bylaws can't be amended because they're set by the parent organization. Fixing the problem on that level is a complete non-starter. So now we're down to what the organization *can* do. Membership in the organization is of three types - active, inactive, and honorary. A quorum is over half of *active* members. Moving a member to "inactive" status - which confers essentially no loss of privileges *other than* voting - removes them from the number needed for a quorum. The way they're removed from active membership is described in the bylaws as follows: So.... Is it permissible for the Executive Committee to pass a motion that automatically (i.e. "without the Executive Committee having to handle each case as it occurs") confers the "inactive" status after, say, three regular meetings have been missed? And a second motion that automatically reinstates said member upon their next attendance at a meeting? And given that the organization must approve all Executive Committee actions for them to be valid, would such a standing rule be valid indefinitely once approved by the organization?
  4. Apologies to Mr. Brown - I read 40:32, but somehow missed the "footnote 1" text!
  5. Thanks for the reference. That clears everything up.
  6. I believe you 100%. I'm just wondering the *basis* for that statement. Can you share the RONR reference(s) and/or logic?
  7. Would your logic be that the point of *not* taking a count is to not be dilatory, but if you've already done it then the information is useful to record?
  8. If we're moving to suspend the rules, purely technically, is it possible to suspend the rules in such a way as to take a vote where the final count completely ignores write-in candidates? I'm guessing it's likely improper (or at the very least, a bad idea) - but wondering the grounds upon which that's the case. Barring bylaws or state laws to the contrary, of course, reading through section 25, I'm not seeing anything that just jumps out to me as to a reason.
  9. RONR 48:5(2)(a) provides: Does "a count has been ordered" solely mean when the assembly has ordered a count? Or does it apply to a count taken incidentally? For example, with many meetings happening online via Zoom it's very difficult to effectively do things like rising votes and such. So if a voice vote is questionable, or somebody calls "division!" I've seen situations where a chair will just conduct a Zoom poll. That poll, by its very nature, yields an exact count. Or in a particular in-person meeting, a chair may count for his own purposes *without* the assembly ordering it. If done, should that count be recorded in the minutes? Or should the count only be recorded if it was ordered by the assembly?
  10. In addition to what Mr. Katz indicated, it's worth noting that RONR generally isn't intended to prevent the majority (especially a supermajority) of a group from doing something they want to do - whether that's conducting routine business or writing (potentially ill-conceived) bylaws. Whether the things decided are stupid or not is immaterial. I saw an organization once that struck the sentence from their bylaws that incorporated RONR as their parliamentary authority, and didn't replace it with anything. That decision was, from my point of view, pretty stupid - but it's the organization's right to do it, if that's really what they want to do.
  11. If you're balloting by mail, or in some other way where repeated votes are difficult, you could consider "ranked choice voting" - https://ballotpedia.org/Ranked-choice_voting_(RCV) Or if you're voting in person but people just won't budge on their votes, you could consider bylaws provisions to do something like drop the candidate with the lowest number of votes before re-balloting. That eventually whittles the field down to two.
  12. This would get better attention as its own topic. That said, if the Board of Directors is holding a properly-called meeting, and the content of the things to be ratified are within the scope of its authority as a board, there's nothing that would prohibit them from ratifying a number of items as a block. Regarding motions, if there's no requirement they do something like permit others to speak to a motion, there's nothing to prevent them from introducing each motion and adopting it immediately by unanimous consent. RONR isn't designed to slow things down - it's designed to be an efficient way to accomplish things in an environment assumed to be potentially contentious. When there's no contention, it's very efficient.
  13. And in the event of a point of order against (or agreement with) the president's interpretation of the bylaws, a bylaw amendment to clarify the language might be a Very Good Idea.
  14. Thanks for the confirmation. Regarding the second part, when I said: I was more going for the idea of "Candidate A doesn't just become 'elected' because he/she is unopposed". There are some groups that seem to have the idea that an unopposed candidate will automatically get elected.
  15. And if three opinionated parliamentarians at the meeting were differing about the proper way to get the original motion back on the table, but the rest of the assembly were (a) in agreement that the original motion needed to be reconsidered, and (b) tapping their feet and fidgeting uncomfortably, somebody could just propose a motion to suspend the rules in order to allow the reconsideration of the original (unamended) motion?
  • Create New...