Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'parliamentary law'.
Found 3 results
Questions on the future editions. *** How does the RONR authorship team verify what parliamentary practices are modern, prevalent, i.e., "common"? Likewise, ". . . are obsolete, no longer prevalent -- uncommon? *** Does the authorship team poll nonprofit organizations, asking them how nonprofit organizations execute certain parliamentary behaviors? *** Where there is a choice to be made, how does the choice get made to go with one practice over the other practices out there? *** Example: I see organizations having the Treasurers Report first, or at least earlier than what The Book prescribes. (I assume the assembly wants to know how much money they have left, before they add more money to ongoing projects.) So -- When will RONR publish this practice as a "common" practice?
Q. Does RONR Eleventh Edition support the following notion given within the book "Parliamentary Law"? -- That previous notice can be given via the act of adopting a motion? *** Example: The act of creating a committee charged with drafting a revision -- is itself previous notice -- per the book "Parliamentary Law". • No oral announcement of previous notice -- becomes necessary. • No written notice in the call-to-meeting mailed announcement -- becomes necessary. . . . under the book "Parliamentary Law". *** I have not found similar language in RONR 11th edition. Thus my question. *** The implications are staggering! If the concept holds today, then the very act of moving "To Rescind 'X'" implies that previous notice "to rescind 'X' is simultaneously created for the sake of the next meeting.
Please note letter "b." in the Q-and-A. Q. How did it come to be that the authorship team of RONR came to the decision that one cannot rescind a defeated motion? That is, how did the authorship team reason that Henry Martyn Robert was wrong in 1923?