Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Shmuel Gerber

Administrators
  • Content Count

    2,801
  • Joined

Everything posted by Shmuel Gerber

  1. Welcome to Pages! Pages extends your site with custom content management designed especially for communities. Create brand new sections of your community using features like blocks, databases and articles, pulling in data from other areas of your community. Create custom pages in your community using our drag'n'drop, WYSIWYG editor. Build blocks that pull in all kinds of data from throughout your community to create dynamic pages, or use one of the ready-made widgets we include with the Invision Community. View our Pages documentation
  2. Hey, check this out. This question has come up before. http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#17 🙂
  3. Yes. But it probably doesn't matter, and it doesn't accomplish anything unless a quorum is present.
  4. Since we all seem to be guessing what this is about, maybe it's actually a mail-in ballot that is not supposed to be secret. It's not obvious to me that it would be against the rules to have someone else fill in a mail-in ballot for the member.
  5. Why is this posted as a graphic instead of text?
  6. Sounds like a legal question to me. Sounds like it could be both a legal issue and dependent on the rules in RONR to me.
  7. But if the law allows the bylaws to take precedence, and the bylaws prescribe RONR, and RONR says you can't do it . . .
  8. Why not? RONR specifically forbids boards to act by written consent without a meeting, even if unanimous, unless authorized in the bylaws.
  9. It could be both a legal issue and dependent on the rules in RONR, as in this topic.
  10. Well, I'm glad we got that sorted out.
  11. What about this, from page 336: "Renewal of motions is limited by the basic principle that an assembly cannot be asked to decide the same, or substantially the same, question twice during one session—except through a motion to reconsider a vote (37) or a motion to rescind an action (35), or in connection with amending something already adopted (see also pp. 74–75)."
  12. It's too soon to recapitulate -- I haven't even capitulated yet.
  13. Rhyme, shmime. 🙂 That's not an accurate summary of the process, for a couple of reasons. First, before there are any votes to tabulate, the members have to vote, which happens only when the chair puts the question, clearly indicating what is being voted on. Second, in a great many instances (nobody, AFAIK, has tabulated exactly what percentage), there is no tabulation involved in deciding which side has prevailed in the vote; the chair simply estimates which side is greater by looking at the members who have risen or listening to the members who have responded to a voice vote.
  14. A motion to adjourn to the next stated (regular) meeting sounds to me like an ordinary motion to adjourn, which in the circumstances you describe is a privileged motion. (However, once the motion is carried, it doesn't really matter whether it should have been a main motion or not.) The pending motion would be taken up as the first item of Unfinished Business at the next meeting (unless there is a "special order" set for the next meeting, and the pending motion is not also a special order).
  15. It's too bad that this reply hasn't gotten more attention. I see a very large number of responses, in other topics, about procedures for adopting a special rule of order, but they're probably not applicable because the case seems to involve a subordinate board, which cannot adopt a special rule of order that conflicts with the parliamentary authority. RONR is rather clear that nonmembers are not allowed to speak in debate unless the rules are suspended for that purpose.
  16. Which wording in RONR are you referring to?
  17. In this assembly, everyone's a winner!
  18. I would quibble with your quibble. A rule in the parliamentary authority stating that particular wording in the bylaws means that officers cannot be removed by a vote of the assembly except after cause has been shown is not in the nature of a rule of order, and neither is the relevant provision in the bylaws defining the term of office in the nature of a rule of order.
  19. "And" can mean "in addition to", and it can mean "at the same time as". (Or in other words, "and" can mean "in addition to", or it can mean "at the same time as".) If I say, "I saw a bunch of husbands and wives", I'm probably talking about two sets of people; but if I say, "I saw a bunch of husbands and fathers", I may well be talking about the same set of people. In the first case, I doubt it would be clearer to say, "I saw a bunch of husbands or wives".
  20. No, but I think I'd agree that if the standard language were what Dr. Stackpole says it should be, that would not be incorrect either.
  21. That's a neat trick, but the word "not" has to be treated with more care than that, since the "scope of the negation" often encompasses more than than just one word or phrase.
  22. In addition, the previous subsection (pp. 95-96) states: "Whenever a meeting is being held in executive session, only members of the body that is meeting, special invitees, and such employees or staff members as the body or its rules may determine to be necessary are allowed to remain in the hall. Thus, in the case of a board or committee meeting being held in executive session, all persons—whether or not they are members of the organization—who are not members of the board or committee (and who are not otherwise specifically invited or entitled to attend) are excluded from the meeting."
×
×
  • Create New...