Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by JustinPappano

  1. 1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

    I am not entirely certain, however, why an assembly would do all this, which makes me wonder if the assembly is doing this because of other customized rules in play that I don't know about.

    25 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

    I, too, am wondering why the assembly wants to do this.

    There is a specific reason for this procedure which creates this dilemma, although I will not bore the members of the forum with the 'why'. 

  2. Just now, Josh Martin said:

    Can you clarify what exactly it is you mean by this?

    Of course. Could a Committee of the Whole meet outside of a meeting of the Assembly? As in, an assembly would rather convey a Committee of the Whole to make a recommendation at the next meeting rather than doing it during a meeting. Is this allowed? 

  3. 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. 

  4. 1 minute ago, Josh Martin said:

    It's a majority (more than half) of the current members of the board, not the number of positions


    Just now, Atul Kapur said:

    The general response on this forum has been that it refers to the current members of the board, unless it specifies the number of positions.


    Thank you, gentlemen! I presumed this to be the case, although I wanted to be sure. 

  5. 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 vacancy shall be filled in the period commencing thirty (30) days prior to a General Meeting."

    Does the quorum of the Board of Directors remain at half of the members on Board or half of the positions? So if there are only 5 of the 20 members of the Board and the other 15 positions are vacant, is quorum a majority of the remaining five remaining members or the total 20 positions?

  6. 6 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

    There is also an issue here as to whether or not what has been done as a result of the vote taken in July is something that is impossible to undo.

    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)? 


  7. 10 minutes ago, Rob Elsman said:

    Without seeing the bylaw,

    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. 

  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. 17 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

    Whoever has the authority to make the necessary preparations for the meeting, for example, rent the hall where it will be held (or the virtual hall), would almost certainly have the right to confirm that members are attending and non-members are not. Likely this will be the board or staff.

    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.


    54 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

    I'm not sure I understand the question. Is your concern that there are so many imposters that there are enough of them to prevent adoption of the rule? If not, I don't understand what is preventing the assembly from adopting this rule.

    You addressed my concern here with the sentence, I was unsure how it would occur at its first instance. 

    55 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

    Yes, I think the rule described here could only be adopted by the membership, unless the bylaws provide otherwise. It is quite common for large societies to grant extensive power to the board.

    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 vote; although, at the same time, how can a group (other than the assembly themselves) impose such a rule, such as registering in advance. How would the assembly be able to make such a rule if it is not clear who is entitled to vote prior to the meeting's call to order? My hypothetical would be a society that is so large that it is not reasonable that the Chair or anyone for that matter would recognize every member (several thousand). Further, if an ID is required to enter the meeting, how is this rule applied to the membership but not made by the membership; to me, it seems incongruent with some of the principles I have seen discussed here, such as a rule of the society can only be interpreted by the society not the Board or any other body (56:68).  
     Anyways, I have been trying to wrap my brain around this one and have come here for guidance. Thank you all in advance

  13. 10 minutes ago, Guest Becky Martin said:

    A committee Chair votes yes or no on one specific issue. A tie occurs, then the Chair votes a second time as a tie breaker.

    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 simultaneously.  

  14. 22 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

    Just a coincidence?

    Hardly! I was inspired by that question with a situation I have encounter at one of my orgs. 


    22 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

    In any case, if the chair of the standing committee is also presiding at the meeting where the report is received, the committee can designate another of its members to be the reporting member, and to make any motions arising out of the report.  The president could then preside normally over the meeting at which the report was received.

    Thank you for this! I think it's the best way to do it, less questioning the impartiality of the chair. 

  15. 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 and remain in the Chair during the recommendations, as long as he does not debate of course. This brings up the question of the definition of the reporting member, I have read the sections in the index referring to them, and cannot find a specific definition, other than that they are usually members of the assembly (51:11). 

    What are your thoughts? Thank you in advance for your help! 

  16. 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. 

    45 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

    It seems the idea was that an abstention may not be a vote, but a person who abstains is still a person voting - a pretzel I cannot begin to untangle.

    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. 

  17. 4 hours ago, coffmantl said:

    Can a member of City Counsel sign up for Public Comments, then address the counsel as a citizen during the Public Comment portion of the City Counsel Meeting, then resume their role as a counsel person?

    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.

  18. 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. 

  19. 1 hour ago, Guest Guest John said:

    Amended 10/05]

    Section 3. Voting by Ex-Officio Board

    Members. Ex-officio Board members shall

    have authority to cast a full vote (as a team

    when there are co-chairs) at Board meetings.

    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.

  20. 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. 



  21. 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. 

  • Create New...