Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

JustinPappano

Members
  • Content Count

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JustinPappano

  1. Hi all, Am I correct in my interpretation of 25:3 that if an assembly has a Special Rule of Order stating, "All members shall have two opportunities to speak on each question for no more than 9 minutes per speech per day" and that if that assembly adopts a motion to Limit or Extend Limits of debate to a time that is contrary to their Special Rule of Order, that motion is effectively the motion to Suspend the Rules and in order? Am I also correct that it does not require a higher threshold than a 2/3 vote as per #92 in the tinted pages? Thank you all in advance.
  2. Thank you, gentlemen! I presumed this to be the case, although I wanted to be sure.
  3. Hi all, a quick question about quorum that a friend of mine and myself were discussing. Suppose a bylaw clause states, "Section #. Quorum. A majority of the Board of Directors shall constitute a quorum." Suppose further that there are 20 members of the Board of Directors and that 15 of them resigned partway through their term for whatever reason (these resignations are accepted). Suppose the bylaw provision regarding vacancies on the Board is, "Section # Directors. A vacancy in a position of elected director shall be filled by the Board until the next General Meeting. No vaca
  4. Suppose this is the case, would a remedy for KTB's situation be to move the contracting of the individual anew if possible (and maybe pursue a censure or some other measure against the Board)?
  5. Agreed. Thank you! This is a case where fix the time to which to adjourn would have come in handy.
  6. Let's for sake of discussion show the bylaw clause pertinent here: "[the governing documents can be amended] by a two-thirds vote provided that notice of fourteen (14) days has been provided to all members of the Board of Directors" Does this change anything? I don't think so, but I don't mind hearing everyone's opinion.
  7. I am inclined to agree with you. Thank you!
  8. Hi all, Suppose you have a meeting where you considering a motion that requires 7 days notice as per the bylaws. Further, suppose that this meeting is inquorate. The President then calls a special meeting with 4 days notice as required in the bylaws to consider that motion, is notice fulfilled? Or does the special meeting also have to be at least 7 days in advance?
  9. Hi all, From what I am reading about Suspend The Rules, (25:1) it makes it clear that an assembly can use this motion, that I know; although, from what I have read, it seems that this is not something a committee can explicitly do (unless a special rule of order/bylaw clause states that they can of course). This is based from my reading, there is nothing to my knowledge that says it one way or another. So, can a committee move to suspend the rules? Thank you all in advance!
  10. Dr. Kapur, do you think this would also apply in the case of requiring members to register in advance? For example, in the call stating that all members who wish to attend must register 48 hours prior to the start of the meeting, in your opinion, would this be covered by 61:6 or would it have to be in the nature of a special rule of order/bylaw clause?
  11. Thank you Mr. Martin, you addressed all of my concerns. You addressed my concern here with the sentence, I was unsure how it would occur at its first instance. For my curiosity, what sort of bylaw language would authorize the Board to have such power? I have seen Boards that have the ability to amend their society's bylaws; therefore, even if they are unable to institute this on their own volition, I assume they can change the bylaws to reflect the language you kindly presented above? Thank you!
  12. Hi all, I wanted to ask a hypothetical about the use of a credentials committee at an AGM. Is it proper to require prior registration to an AGM and then have a credentials committee of sorts as per 59:14? I recognize the difference between an AGM and a Convention from RONR's perspective; I wonder what the members here think about the use of registration as per 59:14 at a general meeting of an organized society? I think from an organizational perspective; it would be difficult (especially in a virtual world) to not ID the members to ensure they are entitled to be present and vot
  13. No. A fundamental principle of parliamentary law is that one member gets one vote. "It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that each person who is a member ... is entitled to one -- and only one -- vote on a question" (RONR 45:2). A committee chair usually votes with all of the other members, even if they didn't, which is the case with the presiding officer of a large deliberative assembly, it is clear that they cannot vote twice. The presiding officer of a large deliberative assembly may vote to create a tie or to break one, but unquestionably they shall not do both simultan
  14. Hardly! I was inspired by that question with a situation I have encounter at one of my orgs. Thank you for this! I think it's the best way to do it, less questioning the impartiality of the chair.
  15. Nothing on the topic, it is the standard bylaw out of RONR with minor modifications. The Board is a large one, therefore the Chair has always adhered to all of the rules set out in RONR regarding the Rule Against the Chair's participation in Debate as per 43:29.
  16. Hi all, I have been looking for an answer to this question in RONR and cannot find it directly addressed. If the Chairman of a standing committee also happens to be the President of the Board, what occurs when the standing committee reports with recommendations to be debated? My first impression, as to ensure impartiality of the Chair, is that the President should allow the Vice President to preside for the duration of the debate coming from the committee's report. But it also occurs to me that the President could allow another member to present the report of the standing committee a
  17. I have not heard anything about this, but I do find it interesting to see how many university/college boards/senates need the aid of a parliamentarian. I have seen this before! Here follows a quote from the procedural bylaw of my local municipality up here in Ontario, Canada: "if any Member present refuses to vote or fails to vote, the Member shall be deemed to vote against the question unless prohibited by statute or this By-law." Maybe a more experienced member of the forum from Canada could shed light on if this is more common up here than in the US.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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 ed
  23. 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!
  24. 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
  25. 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 parliam
×
×
  • Create New...