Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Gary Leach

Members
  • Posts

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Gary Leach

  1. Thanks! My copy of Parliamentary Law is in the mail. I look forward to checking the referenced items as soon as it arrives.
  2. I agree there's not a violation here, since that's what their bylaws tell them to do. However, autonomy of the organization over its own bylaws notwithstanding, my concern is just that, by codifying it in the bylaws, it perpetuates a questionable practice. It's just as easy to follow the "acclamation" route, preferred by Robert's, as it is follow the "is not in order" route of a secretary casting a single ballot.
  3. Bruce & Weldon, I agree with you. Unfortunately, without quoting the wording from Robert's, the following is what you get: "If the office is uncontested, a motion to cast one vote for the uncontested candidate may be made." That's a direct quote from the bylaws of one of my organizations. I pointed out that Robert's says it is not in order to do that and I was told, "We know that, but everybody does it that way. That's why we put it in the bylaws, because the bylaws override Robert's" It seems that Robert's is intimidating to a lot of people and they would rather try to work around it than with it. 🙁
  4. Okay, then presumably, the following excerpt from the bylaws of the organization in question is acceptable, since it specifically lists the exception to the requirement for a ballot vote in the case of only one nominee. The wording is similar to that found in 46:40. "The election of officers shall proceed by secret ballot except that when only one person is nominated for an office, the President, after ensuring that, in fact, no members present wish to make further nominations, simply declares that the nominee is elected, thus effecting the election by acclamation." P.S. Wow, thanks for the speedy response!
  5. 46:40 If only one person is nominated and the bylaws do not require that a ballot vote be taken, the chair, after ensuring that, in fact, no members present wish to make further nominations, simply declares that the nominee is elected, thus effecting the election by unanimous consent or “acclamation”. The motion to close nominations cannot be used as a means of moving the election of a candidate in such a case. With the understanding that it is ultimately the responsibility of the organization to interpret its own bylaws, would it be correct to interpret 46:40 as meaning, "If only one person is nominated and the bylaws do not require that a ballot vote be taken in such a case, the chair, after ensuring, etc, etc." In other words, is the 46:40 acclamation wording an acceptable exception to the ballot rule as referred to in 46:35?
  6. Regarding the 12th Edition, Unfinished Business and General Orders, 41:23 and 41:26, I'm confused. 41:23 tells us, “The heading
includes items of business in the four categories that are listed below
” Those categories are a), b), c), & d). Subparagraph b) has a phrase at the end, “
as indicated under (a) and (c).”, the meaning of which I am at a loss to comprehend. Then, 41:26 tells us “
a subject may not be taken up under
unless it has acquired such status by one of the formal processes (a), (c), or (d) listed in 41:23.” The omission of (b) appears to be a contradiction of the opening sentence of 41:23. I suspect it has something to do with the phrase I don’t understand in 41:23 b), but after much thought, frustration, and research, (Robert’s Rules for Dummies. AIP Standard Code, Demeter, and this Q&A forum) I still don’t get it! What am I missing, please? Thanks in advance!
  7. Previous notice is given at a monthly meeting of intent to make a motion at the next monthly meeting. At that next meeting, the member who gave the notice is absent. We already know what the motion was going to be because it was stated along with the notice. I assume it is permissible for some other member to make the motion, correct? If so, since notice was given but the motion had not yet been made, I assume it would have to be made under New Business, correct? If no one makes the motion, I assume the notice "falls to the ground" and the process would have to start over; the member would have to provide notice again at a future meeting and then be present at the following meeting to make the motion, correct?
×
×
  • Create New...