Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

RSW

Members
  • Content Count

    42
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About RSW

  • Rank
    RSW
  1. Is it invalid for the board to (effectively) send the vote to the full assembly if they can't reach an amicable solution? Obviously the board would have to do the actual appointment, but it would seem to me that they could easily vote to abide by the wishes of the assembly.
  2. Unless the bylaws provide otherwise, you re-vote until there's a winner. Nobody gets the ability to cast extra votes due to a tie, but if there's a deadlock that won't break it might be wise to have some conversations about the reasons for the deadlock. Depending on your bylaws, they could also potentially decide to delegate the vote to the main assembly.
  3. They may be simply asking the attorney for a legal opinion regarding the matter. As Mr. Lages mentioned, nothing in RONR would prohibit them from having such a meeting. And nothing would prohibit you from meeting with an attorney of your own, or even the club attorney, for a similar opinion. Assuming your bylaws don't say anything contrary, RONR provides info about trials in 63:30 (bolding mine):
  4. Absolutely. I just found myself wondering how RONR would handle the situation - thanks for clarifying. Either way, I think that whether the council members are using *their* time or taking from the *commenter's* time could be a relevant consideration when looking at the applicable rules / law.
  5. Would the protections in 4:31 still apply to such a person? Specifically:
  6. Are they using the *commenter's* time to speak? If so, and if the commenter were considered to have the same rights as a member of the assembly, ignoring / interrupting / debating them or otherwise curtailing their time would seem to be a breach of RONR 4:31 unless it were for some procedurally-valid reason. Somebody wiser than I would be able to weigh in on whether somebody making public comment (who is, effectively, engaging in some manner of debate about a pending issue) and who has formally been recognized to speak by the chair is generally considered to have the same rights as
  7. That's where I was trying to go with the suggestion that remedies may wind up being legal rather than parliamentary. Solving the problem on the floor of a meeting is ideal. Assuming the opposition is a majority, and that the chair is willing to be bound by RONR as it's actually written (as opposed to how it's written in his head) and recognize people for appropriate motions, then this situation is absolutely solvable by many of the excellent solutions given above. I would add the suggestion that the assembly could move to compel the chair / secretary / whoever has them to produce a copy o
  8. If your bylaws provide for something, you don't need RONR to approve it as bylaws supersede rules in RONR. So as long as your bylaws say "unanimous written consent", and your organization interprets that in such a way that email works for that purpose (I don't know why they wouldn't), then it's okay. I can't recall anything (or find anything with a quick text search) in RONR about that sort of voting, and I would suspect that's because RONR applies to "deliberative assemblies". If you're all thinking about something at different times, and writing emails when it's convenient for you, that
  9. Given that RONR is incorporated by reference in your bylaws, your remedies may turn out to be legal rather than parliamentary if the chair is actively pulling shenanigans and won’t even pretend to follow thecrules.
  10. RSW

    Motion Second

    Correct. I'm saying that a member can't prevent the minutes from being approved without proposing a correction. Which may be why RONR's phrasing isn't one of the chair entertaining a motion for approval, but rather “Are there any corrections to the minutes?” and “There being no corrections [or “no further corrections”] to the minutes, the minutes stand [or “are”] approved [or “approved as read,” or “approved as corrected”].” It's a nitpicky point, but I've seen goofy things like a member (who wasn't at the previous meeting) being unhappy with a decision made *at* that meeting, and a
  11. RSW

    Motion Second

    And if I'm understanding the rules correctly, it's not actually possible to "object" to the minutes themselves in the same way one could potentially object to a motion - only to propose a correction and/or object to a proposed correction. RONR 41:10-11:
  12. Unanimous consent is (effectively) a method for taking a vote.
  13. Even the Kiwanis could conceivably have an ostensible purpose in testing fire department response time, although the circumstances for doing so would be pretty esoteric. I believe that part of the reason we have RONR and parliamentary debate is so that we can have discussion about whether something is in line with a society's object. It feels premature for the chair to rule something out of order because they don't immediately see the connection. If somebody just wanted to gripe about dues without having a proposal to change them (and presumably realized there needed to be a motion on the
  14. Incidentally, by my understanding a motion to "postpone definitely" or to "lay on the table" *couldn't have been made*, as it would have been out of order. RONR 40:7 seems to cover the list of things that can be done without a quorum: At the point where a meeting is adjourned to a fixed time, adjourned, recessed, etc. the motion is moved into the future automatically as Mr. Brown indicates. Even if the motion were ruled "in order" as it was narrowly construed to do the exact same thing that would be done automatically by adjourning, recessing, etc. (and thus arguably able to be conside
  15. This comports with RONR 9:18: With regard to: I feel like that would still be against the corporate charter, *UNLESS* the organization typically schedules their "regular meetings" in this way, suggested in RONR 9:2: In that case it wouldn't be a "special meeting" though in the RONR sense of the term - it would be a regularly-called meeting with the main business item being the selection of delegates. Alternatively, depending on how the structure works a local bylaw could perhaps clarify / supersede the national constitution - but I think it would have to be a bylaw
×
×
  • Create New...