Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Shmuel Gerber

Administrators
  • Posts

    4,475
  • Joined

Posts posted by Shmuel Gerber

  1. On 1/18/2024 at 1:26 AM, Kjottmar said:

    If we have 10 people present, and one person abstains from a vote, does their choice to not participate in that vote mean that we are now under quorum (with only 9 participating members)?

    No.

    On 1/18/2024 at 1:26 AM, Kjottmar said:

    Or are they still considered present and thus still part of quorum?

    Yes. 

  2. On 12/27/2023 at 9:35 PM, CJ-P said:

    Currently, my organization has written bylaws, but none that will be applicable to members at the time of this vote, so no parliamentary authority is explicitly defined although Robert's Rules is informally adopted outside of this.

     

    On 12/27/2023 at 9:49 PM, CJ-P said:

    The current bylaws do not say anything about their amendment nor do they explicitly define a parliamentary authority to fall-back on. Very poorly written which is part of the need for the rewrite.

    You say there will be no applicable bylaws, but then you talk about the current bylaws.

    From your descriptions it seems that this organization already exists, but according to RONR, it is the adoption of bylaws that creates the organization. 

    Without further details I don't see how we can help figure out what vote is required to adopt new bylaws.

  3. On 12/27/2023 at 9:35 PM, CJ-P said:

    Currently, my organization has written bylaws, but none that will be applicable to members at the time of this vote, so no parliamentary authority is explicitly defined although Robert's Rules is informally adopted outside of this. Furthermore, this revision of the bylaws will override RONR and allow bylaw amendments specifically to be passed by simple majority for the time being.

    I'm sorry, but this sounds like mumbo-jumbo to me. Are there bylaws in place or not, and if so what do they say about their amendment? 

  4. On 12/27/2023 at 9:03 PM, CJ-P said:

    Specifically, does a rewrite proposal operate the same way as defined in the "Second Operational Meeting" section of RONR (i.e. do you propose a rewrite the same way the original version was proposed)? I believe I read this, but I cannot find the item that states it anymore.

    See RONR (12th ed.) 56:15.

    On 12/27/2023 at 9:03 PM, CJ-P said:

    If this is the case, what determines a waiving of the first reading? Is it brought to a vote, or can it be waived by claiming enough notice was provided (all members will have had access to the text for 1+ month)? It is quite a lengthy document and I am afraid the longer the meeting goes on the more frustrated members will be if every article has to be read out that they have already read.

    If the text has been distributed to the members in advance, the committee chair can move its adoption without reading it. See 4:5.

  5. On 12/25/2023 at 11:05 AM, Josh Martin said:

    But if read in that way, doesn't that suggest the rule is saying that the amendment is not "considered in order" unless the amendment is adopted? That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

    Or you are you saying that what follows the comma after "amendment" is wholly independent of what precedes it, and is a new, complete provision?

    I would say it is written as a separate provision, but obviously the first provision must be fulfilled as well:

    "Proposed amendments to the bylaws not mailed to the State Executive Committee thirty days prior to the convening of the State Convention shall not be considered in order unless the propounder of the proposed amendment shall have first furnished a minimum of one thousand (1000) copies of the proposed amendment,

    and

    it [the proposed amendment so furnished] must receive a two-thirds vote of the Delegates present and voting at any State Convention [to be approved]."

    The structure is almost identical to the other provision requiring printed copies, which specifically says "to be approved".

  6. On 12/24/2023 at 6:35 PM, Atul Kapur said:

    In my mind, the closest analogy in RONR was the phrase "at their own risk" in 40:9

    Quote

    If, instead, the members present take action informally in the absence of a quorum, they do so at their own risk.

     

    Right. If members decide to do something on their own when they have no valid power to act for the organization, they are responsible for what they've done. Although in most cases, I'm not so sure that the primary risk isn't borne by those who actually carry out the decision. But maybe that is a legal question rather than a parliamentary one. 🙂 

  7. On 12/24/2023 at 3:24 PM, Josh Martin said:

    Would perhaps a more accurate statement be that, in such circumstances, the society may order the board members to repay the unauthorized expenditures?

    Without disciplinary proceedings, I don't think the society can “order” the board members to repay unauthorized expenditures in the same way that it can order the treasurer to issue a check, or the secretary to issue a meeting notice. But the society can demand such payment the same way it can demand something from anyone who owes it money.

    The society can determine that the action taken was outside the board's authority and therefore the board members are personally responsible. And then if the board members don't want to pay, the society can attempt to force the issue, either through legal proceedings or an internal disciplinary process.

    My quibble is not with whether the board members may have to pay or do have to pay, but I'm just not thrilled with your proposed distinction between parliamentary requirements and legal obligations. There may always be legal considerations regarding the real-world ramifications of decisions made in a meeting; parliamentary procedure is merely concerned with how those decisions are validly made, and does not itself impose financial obligations.

    But it is true that RONR makes mention in several places of incurring monetary obligations, such as:

    • "It is different with members who have not paid their dues up to the date of sending in their resignations. Until they have settled their dues, the society is under no obligation to accept their resignations, and thus additional amounts may become due." (32:8)

    • "Members cannot be assessed any additional payment aside from their dues unless it is provided for in the bylaws." (56:19)

    • "Punishments that a society can impose generally fall under the headings of censure, fine (if authorized in the bylaws), suspension, or expulsion. The extreme penalty that an organization or society can impose on a member is expulsion." (62:1)

    • "The usual possible penalties for an officer are censure or removal from office, although in special circumstances others may be appropriate (for example, to repay into the society's treasury funds that the officer has been found guilty of misappropriating, perhaps with an added fine)." 63:33(f)

    But I think those are just useful provisions for a society to have, usually arising out of the nature of bylaw provisions, and not really matters of parliamentary procedure per se.

     

  8. On 12/23/2023 at 1:26 PM, Wright Stuff said:

    "Proposed amendments (sic) to the bylaws not mailed to the State Executive Committee thirty days prior to the convening of the State Convention shall not be considered in order unless the propounder of the proposed amendment shall have first furnished a minimum of one thousand (1000) copies of the proposed amendment, and it must receive a two-thirds vote of the Delegates present and voting at any State Convention."

    On 12/24/2023 at 3:41 PM, Josh Martin said:

    As I read the rule in question, the "two-thirds vote of the Delegates present and voting at any State Convention" refers to the vote required for the proposed amendment to be considered.

    On 12/24/2023 at 4:34 PM, Wright Stuff said:

    one of whom, at a Bylaws Committee meeting, said to me, “I don’t know why you keep bringing up Robert’s Rules since they have nothing to do with our bylaws.” Remember that the bylaws designate RONR as their parliamentary authority.

    Well, I don't know why you keep bringing up your bylaws since they have nothing to do with Robert's Rules. 🙂

    But I disagree that the vote in your rule refers to a requirement for considering the amendment. I don't see any phrase other than “the proposed amendment” that could grammatically be the antecedent of “it”. 

    The portion of this rule that says “and it must receive …” is clearly separate from the “unless” portion that says “shall not be considered in order unless the propounder of the proposed amendment shall have first furnished a minimum of one thousand (1000) copies of the proposed amendment”.

    If the latter portion said “and it receives…” instead of “,and it must receive…”, then I might agree there is at least some ambiguity as to whether the vote required was part of the prerequisites for entertaining the amendment.

  9. On 12/23/2023 at 9:52 AM, Josh Martin said:

    Mr. Katz's response involved whether, as a parliamentary matter, the board members are required to repay the unauthorized expenses (unless, of course, the society ratifies them).

    I don't think parliamentary procedure says anything about whether board members are required to repay things. It simply recognizes that a board has no more authority than it is given by the governing documents, and that members of an assembly who vote in favor of something assume responsibility for that thing if their vote prevails. 

  10. On 12/23/2023 at 8:33 AM, Corey said:

    if a member makes a motion to bundle another members motions does the maker have to approve?

    RONR doesn't speak of "bundling" motions, but any time a member attempts to move the adoption of several motions on different subjects at the same time, this can be done only if no member objects. 

  11. On 12/20/2023 at 10:53 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

    It was more than sufficient, in fact the edits shown in the original were unassailable in all particulars.

    I was not commenting on the content of either message, but only on the technical fact that the message board, which usually notes the fact and time of edits, apparently did not do so in this instance.  No negative inferences should be drawn.  

    I'm not familiar with the interface for other users, but moderators have to check a box to turn on the notice that a post has been edited.

    Moderators can also see the notice that a post has been edited regardless of whether that checkbox has been turned on. 

  12. On 12/19/2023 at 10:37 AM, Joyce Ward said:

    Hi,

    At a recent Board meeting, a participant tabled the agenda item because the person who added to the agenda was not present at the meeting.  The Chair objected to the motion and requested that the item be discussed at the meeting.   Another person appealed the decision by the Chair, and the tabling motion was passed.  Does the tabling motion be brought to the next meeting as business arising or does it need to be lifted off the table at the meeting?  Also who is able to lift the motion off the table.  When reviewing our Robert's Rules of Order, we are thinking that the only people that can lift the motion off the table are those that voting in favor of the tabling motion and were present at the meeting.

    Thanks.

    Nothing in this description resembles how business is conducted under Robert's Rules of Order.

    I think your guess as to what happens next, according to the way this board handles its business, is as good as ours, if not better. 

×
×
  • Create New...