Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

JustinPappano

Members
  • Posts

    64
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Location:
    Toronto, ON., Canada

Recent Profile Visitors

253 profile views

JustinPappano's Achievements

  1. Perhaps they are misguided? Or are they seeking out chaos? Whatever the reason is, I wonder what other options they have; could they consider half of the bylaws seriatim and then move to suspend the rules to consider the rest in gross?
  2. Suppose a society is revising its Bylaws per 57:5-6 of RONR, and the assembly does not wish to consider the amendments seriatim; instead, the society would like to consider the revision by other means. What other means, if any, would you suggest are in order? This society requires a 2/3s vote with notice to amend their bylaws, and their parliamentary authority is RONR.
  3. Dr. Kapur, I agree with you regarding the above. That section, when read in this context, sheds lights on the purposeful distinction.
  4. Hi all: I know and acknowledge that in the committee of the whole, the regular presiding officer leaves the chair. The rationale provided in RONR, however, perplexes me. "Also, a chairman of the committee of the whole is appointed and the regular presiding officer leaves the chair, so that, by being disengaged from any difficulties that may arise in the committee, he may be in a better position to preside effectively during the final consideration by the assembly." (RONR (12th ed.) 52:2(a)). May some of my friends humour me and provide some context to this rationale, i.e. what is meant by "any difficulties that may arise in the committee." Perhaps I need to be quicker this evening, but I cannot think of a scenario as RONR describes. A discussion on the appropriateness of when an assembly may elect to use either the committee of the whole or the quasi committee of the whole may be fruitful. RONR provides that the former is better suited for large assemblies, and the latter is ideal for meetings of medium size; perhaps that is relevant? Thank you!
  5. I agree with you completely! Splitting hairs, as it may be, it is a distinction that we all acknowledge, an abstention is not a vote in the negative; although, I did not think going into those weeds would be productive to try and illustrate the point to our guest.
  6. Mr. Brown, I believe our guest is referring to FAQ #6 on the RONR website. I think you misunderstand the fundamental concept that RONR is conveying in 44:9. Irrespective of your view, when the vote threshold states "majority of those present" or "two-thirds votes of those present" or "63.5% of those present" an abstention does count as a negative vote: Picture this: There are ten (10) members present. The bylaws (or some other rule) (unwisely) state that the pending question requires a majority of those present to carry. The vote is taken, four (4) in favour, two (2) opposed, four (4) abstentions. A majority of those present = six (6) – as only four (4) votes were in favour, the vote fails. This is the fundamental mathematics that RONR is referring to in 44:9. I think you align with RONR in many respects, as seen in the text quoted above. However, you have misinterpreted the text of RONR when referring to calling the negative vote as intrinsically irrelevant (44:9); the votes other than yes are relevant as they indicate, in the case of a vote requiring a threshold of those present if the threshold has been met. I believe that what we all may agree with is that it is often wiser to state "a majority of those present and voting" rather than "a majority of those present"
  7. I am glad there is a resolution. As many have said on this forum before, the minutes are a record of what decisions were made, not what was said.
  8. Does the body have any doubts regarding the accuracy of the newly discovered draft? If there is a reason then some additional considerations have to be taken into account. Although, a body not knowing if it is accurate raises the issue that the current composition does not know if the minutes of a decade ago are accurate either. I do agree with Mr. Martin that reaching out to a person who would know may be advisable, especially if this is the only set of minutes that are for some unknown reason unapproved.
  9. I do agree with Mr. Novosielski, I would not recommend straw polls.
  10. As for the rest of your inquiry, Mr. George, I believe your group in their rules would have to determine that. As you know, RONR does not have rules on the matter - you would be creating a custom rule that hopefully would make clear how the rule would work.
  11. I would suggest what you are looking for are either 1. A special rule of order on the matter or 2. a Bylaw amendment on the matter (the former being preferred in my opinion). To adopt special rules of order requires (a.) previous notice and a 2/3s vote or (b.) a vote of a majority of the entire membership. (RONR 2:22).
  12. I am up in the air on this one myself, Mr. Martin. Although, my gut tells me that in this case, it refers to the office which is tasked with keeping the records, i.e. the officer secretary. I have been a part of many groups where the secretary (or treasurer) does not actually do the recording of the minutes (or financials), but instead, a staff member does that work; it would, in my opinion, be odd to have a non-elected and non-appointed non-member of a body sign for them on their minutes (or financial documents). The minutes, as we know, are the official record of the proceedings of an assembly, and they are usually documents of a legal nature for incorporated groups. This fact leads me to believe that RONR is referring to the secretary (officer), not the person acting as recording officer. I will call to our attention the fact that in 48:7, RONR refers to the president signing the minutes (if the assembly wishes). If the authorship team wanted to convey the presiding officer, why not say chairman? I think they mean the officers in both cases. Although, whenever there is ambiguity, if who signs the minutes matters to your organization, I'd recommend adopting a clear-cut rule on the topic!
  13. If you want a definitive answer, I suggest your group makes a rule regarding who signs the minutes - I have seen both practices you have described. I do not think you will find a satisfactory answer in RONR regarding your specific situation. RONR states that the Secretary should sign the minutes (48:7). I think some of my friends may disagree with me, but I would read that to mean the Officer, not the specific person writing the minutes; although, it is up to each group to interpret their own rules - in this case, make a rule if you want to remove any potential doubt.
  14. What are the duties of your Secretary? What is the scope of the recording secretary's duties?
  15. Irrespective of what the others have correctly said about RONR, if this quote was accurate, how would a municipality organize itself? Where I am from, Municipalities immediately after election vote for which of their own shall constitute committees of the council and other boards in the municipality - they all get paid for this. If you could not vote to fill a vacancy in these roles, why can you vote to fill them in the first place? Also, if you do not think it is right in the first place, how do you wish for governmental bodies to staff their committees and boards by lot? Note: I am not a lawyer, let alone one in NJ, this not legal advice.
×
×
  • Create New...