Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Shmuel Gerber

  • Content Count

  • Joined


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. That is true. However, RONR does say, "Although in organizing a new society it may be feasible for the chair to appoint the nominating committee, in an organized society the president should not appoint this committee or be a member of it—ex officio or otherwise." (12th ed., 46:10)
  2. RONR (41:34) refers to "Good of the Order, General Good and Welfare, or Open Forum" (without "For the").
  3. The one in which by-laws do not exist. Try to keep up, man. 🙂
  4. And, interestingly enough, an increase to $50,875 is an increase of 1.75%.
  5. The forum software has recently undergone a major revision, but I'm waiting until it is more stable before activating it. I may be able to do something about this problem in the meantime, but we might just be better off waiting for now.
  6. I don't know anything about how this particular law works (and the language is very similar to the permanent law that allows virtual meetings to be authorized), and frankly I am having a hard time understanding what it means. But just looking at what the words say, it seems like a possible interpretation is that the meeting would be valid even if members were not entitled to make *any* motions, let alone interrupting motions.
  7. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I take it that the virtual convention would be held not in accordance with RONR or the NAP bylaws, but under a temporary provision of the District of Columbia laws (currently set to expire on September 5) that states: "Notwithstanding the articles of incorporation or bylaws, an annual or regular meeting of members does not need to be held at a geographic location if the meeting is held by means of the Internet or other electronic communications technology in a fashion pursuant to which the members have the opportunity to read or hear the proceedings substantially c
  8. That was the correct thing to do. A member has the right to move to extend the meeting, in the hopes of obtaining a 2/3 vote for doing so. The chair can adjourn at the set time without a motion to adjourn, but still has to allow members to make motions that are in order at that time, such as a motion to extend the time for adjournment.
  9. The motion to adjourn should not have been allowed. If anyone wanted to extend the meeting past 7 pm, this should have been treated as a motion to set aside the orders of the day and would require a two-thirds vote to refuse to proceed to the orders of the day. After the assembly has refused to proceed to the orders of the day, they can be called for as soon as the pending business is disposed of. (See RONR (12th ed.) 18:8.) Or, another motion could have been made to extend the meeting for a certain amount of time, which also would require a two-thirds vote. (See 41:56.) And if there
  10. Some of the posts in this topic have been moved to: https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/37537-gender-neutrality/
  11. What does any of this have to do with Guest Lisa's question? Surely you are not suggesting that all the officers be addressed as "Mr."
  12. I don't suppose they would prefer "Master" and "Miss"?
  • Create New...