Louise Posted August 21, 2012 at 10:11 PM Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 at 10:11 PM Hello, all.First of all, thank you so much for all of your help, for this website, for RONR and for RONR In Brief. Our organization now has Board members who are actually excited and looking forward to learning AND using RONR! Progress is being made!I found myself in a bit of a debate this past weekend, however, with a fellow member of the organization. He insists that according to RONR, the President can insist that certain items on the agenda for assembly meetings (not Board meetings) can be designated as "discussion-only" (as in, no motions allowed). I insisted that "discussion-only" items would run contrary to the spirit and intent of RONR AND that the President may well be out of order if he is insisting that the organization's members are not "allowed" to do something at his whim. I was unable to find anything about "discussion-only" agenda items when I later perused my copy of RONR).I told my fellow member that I would "ask the experts". So both he and I are very much looking forward to your response(s).Is he right, or am I? (Or is it a "neither/both" situation?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted August 21, 2012 at 10:19 PM Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 at 10:19 PM He insists that according to RONR, the President can insist that certain items on the agenda for assembly meetings (not Board meetings) can be designated as "discussion-only" (as in, no motions allowed).Ask him to show you where it says that. It's not up to you to find something that doesn't exist.See also FAQ #14. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Louise Posted August 21, 2012 at 10:52 PM Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 at 10:52 PM Ask him to show you where it says that. It's not up to you to find something that doesn't exist.See also FAQ #14.I actually did ask him that. (But I don't recall his response...)Soooo...if it "doesn't exist" then I guess that means I was right? (If so, I can't WAIT to tell him!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted August 21, 2012 at 11:11 PM Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 at 11:11 PM If the Board alone is authorized to make certain decisions on behalf of the membership then the membership is free to discuss those issues but cannot necessrily make a motion about the issue or even over rule the Board. So it depends on whether or not these issues are under the exclusive responsibilty of the Board and you need to read the By-laws (and any applicable statute) about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Louise Posted August 21, 2012 at 11:25 PM Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 at 11:25 PM If the Board alone is authorized to make certain decisions on behalf of the membership then the membership is free to discuss those issues but cannot necessrily make a motion about the issue or even over rule the Board. So it depends on whether or not these issues are under the exclusive responsibilty of the Board and you need to read the By-laws (and any applicable statute) about this.Okay, so if the Board is authorized in the Bylaws to, say, hire employees, then it's not the organization's business to get involved in that particular issue. But if the President and/or Board wants to discuss (and only discuss) an issue about which the organization will ultimately make the decision, then the organization is within its rights to make motions on that issue at any of its general meetings (or at a special meeting if it's been called for the purpose of discussing that issue).Does that sound about right? Or is it still more nuanced than that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted August 22, 2012 at 01:05 AM Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 at 01:05 AM Okay, so if the Board is authorized in the Bylaws to, say, hire employees, then it's not the organization's business to get involved in that particular issue. But if the President and/or Board wants to discuss (and only discuss) an issue about which the organization will ultimately make the decision, then the organization is within its rights to make motions on that issue at any of its general meetings (or at a special meeting if it's been called for the purpose of discussing that issue).Does that sound about right? Or is it still more nuanced than that?Stick with Edgar's response, and forget about the board complication. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 34, ll 7-9; then keep reading to line 2 of page 35. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louise Posted August 22, 2012 at 02:14 AM Author Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 at 02:14 AM Stick with Edgar's response, and forget about the board complication.See RONR (11th ed.), p. 34, ll 7-9; then keep reading to line 2 of page 35.Yes, I read that section out loud to him in the midst of our debate. He still insists that RONR allows for discussion-only items somewhere in its depths. (No, he has not said - perhaps cannot say? - where.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted August 22, 2012 at 02:22 AM Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 at 02:22 AM Yes, I read that section out loud to him in the midst of our debate. He still insists that RONR allows for discussion-only items somewhere in its depths. (No, he has not said - perhaps cannot say? - where.)Try p. 362, ll. 4-19. Perhaps that is what he had in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louise Posted August 22, 2012 at 02:58 AM Author Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 at 02:58 AM Try p. 362, ll. 4-19. Perhaps that is what he had in mind.Ah. Thank you, Mr. Wynn. Perhaps this is what he had in mind.Although is this (the Open Forum) something that the members have to agree upon, or can the Chairman dictate that "it shall be so"?On second thought, he was quite clear that the Chairman could designate certain agenda items as for "discussion only", so perhaps this isn't what he had in mind after all. I'll have to check with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted August 22, 2012 at 09:31 AM Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 at 09:31 AM Commending unreservedly Mr Wynn's statements, as with Guest_Edgar's, I'll add ...As far as what meetings are for, you might do well with Page One.As to the President's Authority (if we'll go with a capital "P," we might as well follow with an authoritarian capital "A"), see p. 448, lines 3 -4 up to the comma ("An office carries with it only the rights necessary for executing the duties of the office"); p. 449, lines 7 - 9; and the list of those duties on p. 449 - 450, which glaringly leaves out the duty of the president to prevent the assembly from voting on things.I have a nascent thought, which I'm having trouble formulating in simple expository form because my mind is dulled by that berserk Bavarian ball-of-fire lunatic Louise keeping me up all night again (minds back out of the gutter, you apes!), so all I got is a brass-tacks direction. Suppose a soi-disant discussion-only item comes up. Then, during discussion, some Bolshevik makes a motion. The person that Louise, that crackerjack Lithuanian hyperkinetic Ur-proto-aspiring parliamentarian, is arguing with, proposes that the presiding officer has the authority to declare that motion out of order, and should. He has to give his reasoning, for the record (hte minutes). What will he say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted August 22, 2012 at 09:48 AM Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 at 09:48 AM ... Our organization now has Board members who are actually excited and looking forward to learning AND using RONR ...There is a word whose frequent misuse I typically inveigh against, and in practice, I insist that, as a rule of thumb, it should be used only when something on the order of a zombie eating your leg is occurring. Nevertheless, I will say, you people are weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louise Posted August 22, 2012 at 03:05 PM Author Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 at 03:05 PM As far as what meetings are for, you might do well with Page One.As to the President's Authority (if we'll go with a capital "P," we might as well follow with an authoritarian capital "A"), see p. 448, lines 3 -4 up to the comma ("An office carries with it only the rights necessary for executing the duties of the office"); p. 449, lines 7 - 9; and the list of those duties on p. 449 - 450, which glaringly leaves out the duty of the president to prevent the assembly from voting on things.Thank you, Mr. Tesser. I will point out that list of duties to him, as well as the glaring omission. Suppose a soi-disant discussion-only item comes up. Then, during discussion, some Bolshevik makes a motion. The person that Louise, that crackerjack Lithuanian hyperkinetic Ur-proto-aspiring parliamentarian, is arguing with, proposes that the presiding officer has the authority to declare that motion out of order, and should. He has to give his reasoning, for the record (hte minutes). What will he say?At this point in time, he would probably say, "It's out of order because the Chairman said this was a discussion-only item." Y'know, what the Chairman says, goes. (Yes, yes, yes. *I* know that this is incorrect, and I will thus be able to pull my RONR (11th edition) out from under my chair (not The Chair, of course...that would be odd), and quickly flip to the (previously bookmarked) pages that are referenced in the multiple posts above (thank you very much, all of you) and read out loud to them every single word, explaining to them that there is no room, NO TIME, really, for incessant discussion, where all of us go on and on and on, one after the other, loving the sounds of our own voices, waiting impatiently for our opportunity to speak not just once or twice on any given issue, but three or four or five times...unless we REALLY get going, and then watch out! We can be there for HOURS...and we often are. And people are tired of it. So when someone wants to make a motion on an item so that we can actually MAKE A DECISION instead of talking about it endlessly, that is a GOOD THING™ and should be applauded, and encouraged, and downright rewarded.)...but I digress.Nevertheless, I will say, you people are weird.Why, yes. Yes, we are. Did you just notice that now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.