Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Shmuel Gerber

Administrators
  • Content Count

    3,234
  • Joined

4 Followers

About Shmuel Gerber

  • Rank
    @ShmuelGerber on Twitter

Profile Information

  • Location:
    Brooklyn, NY

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Invision Community from Invision Power Services (formerly known as IP Board)
  2. Start here and follow the links: https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/25416-important-read-this-first-faq-and-information-for-new-members-and-guests/
  3. I think you may find it helpful to read paragraphs 2:8–2:9 in the 12th edition of RONR (Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised) regarding the purpose of bylaws, and 2:23 regarding the purpose of standing rules. They should both be maintained and updated by the secretary whenever they are amended, and combined into a single booklet for reference by members in the future.
  4. I would agree that a society has the right to adopt a special rule of order to allow this use of Lay on the Table. Essentially it would be adopting the practice of the House of Representatives as described in RONR (12th ed.) 17:13n16. This throws the character as a deliberative assembly, as envisioned by Robert's Rules, slightly (or perhaps grossly) out of whack, but according to the principle stated in 2:2 it is allowed to do so if it wishes to.
  5. I may have been too careless in simply saying that I agree with this. I agree that the implied reason that RONR itself prohibits cumulative voting in an election is that it (sort of, kind of) violates the fundamental principle of parliamentary law that each member can have only one vote on a question. But the prohibition itself is explicit in 56:26: "If it is desired to elect by mail, by plurality vote, by preferential voting, or by cumulative voting, this must be expressly stated, and necessary details of the procedure should be prescribed (see 45)."
  6. I don't think that the procedure for having multiple meetings to establish an organization is mandatory under RONR. If there are "dormant" members who cannot attend a meeting for the purpose of suspending the rules to amend the bylaws or add members, there is no technical reason why the "non-dormant" members can't have a single meeting at which they adopt bylaws, enroll members, and elect officers of a new organization. Preferably this would take place in conjunction with a regular meeting of the "dormant" society, so that all the previous members who wish to participate will already be present. The reason for doing this is not to appease RONR, but rather that the old organization is no longer able to validly function under its own bylaws. Why invent an invalid procedure and hope that no one objects, when in fact there may be some people who would have every right to object?
  7. On the other hand, if there is no substantive difference (and I think it would be unusual for there not to be), why not do a little more work to put the organization on legitimate footing?
  8. Actually, the rule (33:17) is that "a previous notice of a proposed motion requiring such notice … cannot be withdrawn after it is too late for renewal, unless unanimous consent is given."
  9. I agree with this, but the question is whether the same can be demonstrated for each of the fundamental principles.
  10. It is the fourth footnote to Chapter VI (Subsidiary Motions), which comprises §11–§17. The footnote numbering restarts with each chapter, not with each section. Edited to add: In the e-book, the footnotes are gathered in groups and located at the end of each chapter, with two-way links between the main text and the footnotes. But an individual footnote can usually also be viewed as a pop-up over the text, without having to view the footnotes section.
  11. Yes. The entire discussion is about the subsidiary motion to Amend, not the main motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted. But actually, come to think of it, this footnote is not necessarily limited to a primary amendment to a main motion; that is just the simplest case. There might well be a motion to strike out and insert (transfer) a paragraph within a primary amendment involving the insertion or addition of several paragraphs, and such a motion would be a secondary amendment.
  12. The latter. "After a paragraph, section, or version of a resolution has been substituted for another, the substituted paragraph or resolution cannot be amended during the same session except by adding something that does not modify the paragraph’s existing content—as is true of any paragraph that has been inserted." (RONR (12th ed.) 12:74)
  13. I think you have a valid concern regarding this (but the footnote is to paragraph 12:8(3)(b), not 12:9).
  14. In 12:8(3)(b)n4, the rule is that the wording of an existing paragraph cannot be changed by the same amendment that changes the placement of that paragraph. Doing that would be an attempt to decide two unrelated questions at the same time — just as described in the rules in 12:58–59 relating to striking out and inserting words. However, after a primary amendment is adopted to change the placement of the whole paragraph, its wording can be changed by subsequent primary amendment. I suppose it could be done in the reverse order just as well (changing the wording, and after that the placement), although the book doesn't say so. In 12:31, when inserting or adding a new paragraph, the maker of the motion to Amend has the opportunity to specify both the wording and the placement. Once those words are inserted in that place by adoption of the amendment, it is not in order to propose changing them (except by adding new wording at the end, or by a motion to Reconsider). Therefore, the proposed new paragraph must be perfected first by secondary amendment while the primary amendment to insert is pending.
  15. Agreed, but as has been previously established, a fundamental principle of parliamentary law (FPPL) can be overridden by a special rule, unless RONR states that only a bylaw can override this FPPL. I'm not seeing anything in text that says something like this would have to be placed in the bylaws. I have to agree with J. J. and Josh Martin about this. RONR (12th ed.) states (emphasis added): 2:2 Experience has shown that some of the rules of a society should be made more difficult to change, or to suspend—that is, to set aside for a specific purpose—than others. Upon this principle, the rules which an established organization may have are commonly divided into classes—some of which are needed by every society, while others may be required only as conditions warrant. Within this framework under the general parliamentary law, an assembly or society is free to adopt any rules it may wish (even rules deviating from parliamentary law) provided that, in the procedure of adopting them, it conforms to parliamentary law or its own existing rules. The only limitations upon the rules that such a body can thus adopt might arise from the rules of a parent body (as those of a national society restricting its state or local branches), or from national, state, or local law affecting the particular type of organization. and 56:49 Article VIII: Parliamentary Authority. The parliamentary authority—through the adoption of which a society establishes its rules of order—should be prescribed in a one-sentence article reading: “The rules contained in the current edition of… [specifying a standard manual of parliamentary practice, such as this book] shall govern the Society in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order the Society may adopt.”(footnote omitted) Societies can adopt special rules of order as they are needed to supplement their parliamentary authority, as explained in 2. It should be noted that the bylaw language recommended above does not authorize the adoption of a special rule of order that would supersede a rule that the parliamentary authority states can be altered only by a provision in the bylaws. When a particular work is adopted as the parliamentary authority, what any other book may say on any point is of no authority if in conflict with the adopted work. In other cases, it may be persuasive but is not binding upon the society. RONR prohibits the suspension of certain classes of rules (25:7–13), including rules which embody fundamental principles of parliamentary law; and it prohibits the adoption of certain classes of rules except by a bylaw provision (56:49, 2:16n5, and Mr. Martin's list above); but I don't see where it says or implies that these classes are the same.
×
×
  • Create New...