Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Shmuel Gerber

  • Content Count

  • Joined

Everything posted by Shmuel Gerber

  1. Why not? RONR specifically forbids boards to act by written consent without a meeting, even if unanimous, unless authorized in the bylaws.
  2. It could be both a legal issue and dependent on the rules in RONR, as in this topic.
  3. 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)."
  4. It's too soon to recapitulate -- I haven't even capitulated yet.
  5. 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.
  6. 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).
  7. 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.
  8. Which wording in RONR are you referring to?
  9. In this assembly, everyone's a winner!
  10. 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.
  11. "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".
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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."
  15. If a motion to adjourn is made when no question is pending, it can include provision for an adjourned meeting. In other words, the two-step process of adopting privileged motions to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn and then to Adjourn is only necessary when a main motion to adjourn is not in order but the privileged motions are in order. Furthermore, if the idea is simply to wait until the next regular meeting to conduct the business, then there is no "fixing the time to which to adjourn" involved.
  16. I'm not sure our servers would have enough space for all the poorly written bylaws out there. It seems almost like bad sportsmanship to try catching them.
  17. Never. But the motion that was rescinded can be adopted again at the next session.
  18. That's not what the Advanced Discussion forum is for, and I doubt it would make any difference in the quality of the answers. Anyone who can post a response in the General Discussion forum can post one in the Advanced Discussion forum, and vice versa. (Starting a new topic in the Advanced Discussion forum, however, requires registering as a member.)
  19. OK, so then it makes sense for the change in the number of directors to be effective as of the elections at the upcoming annual meeting. This should be specified in the motion to change the number of directors that is actually made at the special meeting, not just in the meeting notice.
  20. We have met the forum, and it is us.
  • Create New...