Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Location:
    Sudbury, ON., Canada

Recent Profile Visitors

23 profile views
  1. Having seen a question similar to this on the AIP forums, it was noted by members of the forum that to engage in debate as a council member may be a violation of open meeting legislation as the topics were not posted in advance. I have to premise my statement by saying that I do not have first-hand knowledge of the legislation or your specific situation and am just making a general observation rather than a legal opinion.
  2. Unless there is a rule of your organization to the contrary, RONR states, "The name of the maker of a main motion should be entered in the minutes, but the name of the seconder should not be entered unless ordered by the assembly." (470). I will let the more experienced members of the forum answer what should be done in this specific scenario; although, I believe, as it is not possible to go back in time and this does not seem to fit the characteristics of a scenario (to my knowledge) that would void the motion itself, it therefore should remain in force.
  3. This section leads me to believe that the Chair's appointees do have the right to vote and are members of the Board with all the privileges of any other member. To my knowledge, the mention that they shall, "cast a full vote (as a team when there are co-chairs)..." is incongruent with RONR, as each member has one vote not some sort of team making one member (half a vote each?) in those situations, it is up to the organization to interpret their bylaws.
  4. This answer would be defined in your bylaws; it is unclear whether the three positions you have mentioned are part of the Board of Directors or are just appointees by the president to carry out specific duties. No matter the composition of your Board and who can and cannot vote should be outlined in your bylaws, and without specific text from them, I cannot say if these positions have voting rights or other rights.
  5. I agree with Atul above. I think this situation brings up a bigger conversation of how organizations handle minutes in relation to recordings of meetings. I have found that recordings of proceedings in some organizations cross the line from transparency to tedium when issues arise from reviewing the footage after the meeting and having small (or big) procedural measures repeatedly challenged by members who at times have an axe to grind. I would suggest that if this is something that is a frequent occurrence, the Board of directors should take measures to curb these kinds of unapproved edits and challenges by either adopting a policy or a motion regarding the situation; it is prudent to note that the record of a meeting is the minutes, not a recording.
  6. I did not think of this when reviewing the original post; after re-reading it, I am inclined to agree with you, Mr. Martin. My answer was based on the assumption that it was a typographical error in the minutes, which in this instance, I now believe, is not the case. Thank you for your insight; I always enjoy learning something new!
  7. An essential factor, in this case, is whether the assembly has already approved the minutes of the meeting with the incorrect vote record. If the assembly has already approved these minutes (from the sounds of it this is not the case), you will make use of the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted; please refer to page 305 of RONR. The motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted, requires a 2/3 vote, or a majority vote with notice, or the vote of a majority of the entire membership, or unanimous consent. In the case that the assembly has not yet approved the minutes (which seems to be the case) when the minutes are to be read (or after reading), the chair should then ask if there are corrections to the minutes. If there are any (which in this case there seems to be) they can be made at that time; they are usually handled by unanimous consent; if for some reason, the assembly denies unanimous consent, it is dealt with through a subsidiary motion to Amend. In this case, I would refer you to pages 354, 355, 473, and 474 of RONR, which all outline the minutes and how they are read and approved. Also, it is important to note that this only applies to meetings where, the next regular meeting will be held within a quarterly time interval, when the session does not last longer than one day, and when there will be no change or replacement of a portion of the membership before the next session. If none of these are the case, refer to pages 474 and 475 of RONR for the procedure of approving the minutes.
  8. What you have deciphered so far is correct, a parliamentarian who is a member of the assembly which they are advising has a duty to maintain a position of impartiality, which includes not making motions, participating in debate, or voting (except voting on votes by ballot). Parliamentarians cannot temporarily leave their post to debate or make motions as a presiding officer may from time to time, nor can they vote when their vote will make a difference. The reference in RONR, where you will find all of this information, is page 467, which outlines a member acting as the assembly's parliamentarian; for more information about the office of the parliamentarian, consult pages 465-467.
  • Create New...