Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

rbk

Members
  • Content Count

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. "Persons elected to these offices shall serve for a term of one year, or until their successors have been duly elected."
  2. My original question now boils down to this: What do we do if we can't fill (in a timely manner) an office that the bylaws say must be filled? What does "the election continues until the position is filled" mean in practice? Must the election end before we can do anything else? Can we adjourn the meeting and continue the election at our next meeting?
  3. So not filling the office is not an option? Our bylaws say that "the election of the president... shall be held at the Annual Meeting," but they don't explicitly say that the position shall be filled.
  4. Our bylaws say that "the election of the president... shall be held at the Annual Meeting." To be qualified to run for that office, you must meet certain requirements, e.g., you must have been a member of the organization for at least 5 years. There is a provision in our bylaws that allows members to waive the years-of-service requirement with a majority vote by ballot. What would our organization do if our only candidate for president needed a years-of-service waiver but did not get it?
  5. Using the hypothetical above, if instead of 40 in attendance at the meeting there were 30 or 20, could the chair presume a quorum is present? Is the presumption solely the chair's prerogative? Even though "a point of order relating to the absence of a quorum is generally not permitted to affect prior action" (40:12), you wrote that "40:12 does not completely protect against a Point of Order being raised regarding the absence of a quorum." What problems might arise if minutes are approved and later the recorded attendance shows that a quorum is not present (i.e., the presumption might not
  6. I should have mentioned this sooner, to help explain why it takes us so long to know if we have a quorum. Not all of our members meet the qualification requirements in our bylaws to count towards a quorum. Currently in our organization, only about half of our members are qualified members. Imagine that an organization with 100 total members, 50 "qualified" members, and a quorum requirement of 10 held a meeting with 40 members present. Could the chair observe the large group, "believe" there must be at least 10 qualified members present, and proceed with business, knowing that any member m
  7. Ohm's law is so much easier than parliamentary law. That's my current opinion, but I'd be shocked if it changes.
  8. RONR 40:11 says it's the chair's "duty to determine... that a quorum is present." Wouldn't due diligence require him to do a headcount?
  9. Yes. RONR is the gold standard IMO. I strayed from it because I thought the Senate had a better quorum rule for my organization and our bylaws allow us to use any rule book. But I would imagine that what I cited in RONR is general parliamentary law, or at least common to other recognized parliamentary authorities. Correct. Is that a worry? Doesn't RONR 40:12 offer protection against such disputes? "...a point of order relating to the absence of a quorum is generally not permitted to affect prior action...." You bet! It's required by our byl
  10. No. We rarely have parliamentary questions. When those questions arise, they are usually a matter of bylaw interpretation and are settled pretty easily. Our regular meetings are mostly informational. The only business I can think of that we conduct at regular meetings is approving minutes, electing members and officers, and, rarely, amending the bylaws. The Board of Trustees does our other business at board meetings.
  11. Sorry, I didn't express myself properly. Our bylaws do not adopt a parliamentary authority. RONR (12th ed.) 2:19 says that when an assembly or society does not adopt rules of order, "a recognized parliamentary manual may be cited under such conditions as persuasive." So per RONR guidance, I cited a recognized parliamentary manual (used by the US Senate) as persuasive. Similarly, I could have cited RONR as persuasive. Whether either of those parliamentary authorities persuades is a different matter. I appreciate your question about why it can take us so long to know whether we have a quoru
  12. My organization's bylaws do not adopt rules of order. I think the omission was deliberate because our bylaws look like they were written by someone familiar with parliamentary procedure (probably a lawyer). To my knowledge, the omission hasn't caused us any significant problems in the last 100 years (since our founding). Despite the warnings in RONR about not adopting rules, I'm not inclined to consider changing the bylaws — the saw "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" applies, especially since I'm likely the only person in the organization who knows that not adopting rules is asking for trouble.
  13. My question relates to RONR (12th ed.) 2:18. Can Senate rules be cited as persuasive when an organization’s adopted parliamentary authority is silent?
  14. Our bylaws say that proposed bylaw amendments "shall be read at the Regular Meeting, unless such reading is waived by majority voice vote." If a proposed amendment was emailed to all members in advance, may the chair announce that it was read and waive its reading without having a voice vote? My scenario seems similar to RONR (12th) 41:9 — you don't have to read minutes at a meeting if "copies of the minutes... are sent to all members in advance."
  15. RONR in Brief (3rd ed.) concisely lists the rules governing an assembly, from highest to lowest in authority (law, corporate charter,...). I'd like to cite that information in a paper I'm writing using the original source, RONR (12th ed.), but I'm having trouble finding it there — the closest I can come is RONR §2. Can you provide the citation I'm looking for? Thanks.
×
×
  • Create New...