Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Baofeng Ma

Members
  • Posts

    71
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Baofeng Ma

  1. "In certain tax-exempt organizations of a charitable or educational character, federal and state tax laws must be adhered to in the disposal of the organization's assets. Often such assets are distributed to societies with similar objectives, or to a superior body." RONR (12th ed.) 55:6-7 From above, I understand that the assets should belong to the public once an organization of an educational character (non profit and unincorporated) is dissolved, it is not acceptable to distribute cash in the society's account to its members, am I right?
  2. I see. It is because that the undebatable question, Lay on the table, is immediately pending.
  3. Does it mean that the adjourn is in order, but the point of order is disposed first, and then the chair handles the adjourn, right?
  4. Let's make the same assumption: The main motion and Lay on the table are pending. Member A moves to amend. The chair starts to state the question after it is seconded. Member B raises a point of order and the chair does not know how to do and "refers the point of the order to the judgement of the assembly and where the point thereby becomes debatable " RONR (12th ed.) 23:2(1)-below the 3rd black bullet point. If Member C moves to adjourn, is the motion out of order?
  5. Yeah, it is a good scenario if the chair starts to process the motion to Amend and a member raise a point of order.
  6. RONR (12th ed.) 23:2(1)-the 3rd black bullet point: "With reference to either of the above cases, on the other hand, if a motion to Lay on the Table or a privileged motion is pending and a point of order arises out of the parliamentary situation existing then, the point of order is disposed of first, although it can be interrupted by a still higher-ranking privileged motion. " Does anyone have examples of the situation? For example, if member A has spoken for more than 10 minutes member B raises a point of order, does it belong to the situation? Another question: if the chair refers the point of order that arises out the parliamentary situation existing then, and then it becomes debatable, is a motion to recess or to adjourn still not allowed?
  7. Thank you for the great interpretation. Enjoy reading it.
  8. It makes sense. In addition I tried to read behind the lines. RONR 14:4 "If a main motion is referred to a committee while Postpone Indefinitely is pending, the latter motion is ignored and does not go to the committee, since the adoption of the motion to Commit indicates that the assembly is not in favor of postponing indefinitely." Why is it not in favor of postponing indefinitely? If it is just because the assembly wants that (RONR 13:1) “the question may be carefully investigated and put into better conditions for the assembly to consider.", A motion to Amend can perfect the main motion as well, but why does not the adoption of the motion to Amend indicates that assembly is not in favor of postponing indefinitely? Similarly a motion for Division of a Question can have the similar modifying effect on the main motion. Is there any criteria of "in favor" or "not in favor" ?
  9. I searched and did not find any similar topic. It appears to me that if the division of a question is adopted, the assembly does not want to kill the question. So, should Postpone Indefinitely be considered to be ignored? Or alternatively, with Postpone Indefinitely carried, can I assume that the assembly would like to decide whether each of two parts is killed?
  10. One main motion with Postpone Indefinitely pending. Division of a question has been raised and adopted. Question: Does each of two parts of the main motion carry with Postpone Indefinitely pending? RONR 27:3
  11. Is it safe to summarize the two points of view like the following? 1. (more than 2/3) attendees = 9 2. more than (2/3 attendees) = 10
  12. They agreed that 2/3 of 13 is 8⅔, but they think 2/3 of 13 persons is 9 by rounding up.
  13. Basically I think they calculated in two steps: 1. They calculated how many persons 2/3 of 13, 8.666. As there is no fraction, persons should be 9. 2. More than 2/3 of 13 persons (9) is 10 (or 9+1) They find: 44:1 (assuming that there are no votes having fractions of a vote, as may occur in some conventions) 44:3 (assuming that there are no fractions of votes)
  14. Yes, it is more than 2/3, an unusual threshold.
  15. Bylaws require more than 2/3 attendees of 13 members in the board meeting. In one meeting with 9 members attending the meeting, was the quorum present? Some members said that 2/3 of 13 is 8.666, but it actually should be considered to be 9 because of no fractions in a vote (44:2), therefore more than 2/3 should be 10. The quorum is not present.
  16. Let's assume the appeal is an established rules (not dilatory). Does the appeal can come to the floor?
  17. For example, A: I move to suspend the rules and elect eight delegates. (seconded) Chair: The motion is out of order because it violates the bylaws. A: I appeal from the decision of the chair. (seconded) Chair: The appeal is out of order. The bylaws can not be suspended.
  18. An appeal can not come from known facts, evident truths, established rules or laws? Is it correct?
  19. "measure" appears in many places, for example: 3:33(3) 14:9 17:2 35:3 37:17. Is there any uniqueness about using "measure" instead of the main motion or other terms that are commonly used in RONR ?
  20. We discussed the issue today (Jan, 2nd, 2023) in our meeting. It looks that most people has a trouble of understanding the continuing breach. They believe that it should be ok if no one raises the point of order in time.
  21. In other words, ballot voting contains two important parts( secrecy and write-in) in our case. If any part is missing during voting, it is not by ballot, and therefore against our bylaws, making a continuing breach. Correct?
  22. In addition 46:2 "Strictly speaking, nominations are not necessary when an election is by ballot or roll call, since each member is free to vote for any eligible person, whether he has been nominated or not." 46:35 "... members still have the right, on the ballot, to cast "write-in votes" for other eligible persons.". So no write-in deprived the members of this right.
×
×
  • Create New...