Guest John Posted September 10, 2014 at 12:00 AM Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 at 12:00 AM In a club Board of Directors, may the president submit a motion to the Board? Does he have to relinquish the chair prior to doing so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted September 10, 2014 at 12:09 AM Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 at 12:09 AM In a club Board of Directors, may the president submit a motion to the Board? Does he have to relinquish the chair prior to doing so? See FAQ #1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted September 10, 2014 at 05:03 AM Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 at 05:03 AM In a club Board of Directors, may the president submit a motion to the Board? Does he have to relinquish the chair prior to doing so? The number of directors at the meeting will decide a lot. In a "Small Board", operating under the relaxed rules of RONR, the President/Chairman does not have to relinquish the chair to make a motion, enter into debate, or vote just like any other member. However, this assumes that President is a member of the Board, and a "Small Board" is defined as being comprised of up to thirteen members. Otherwise, the President should not make a motion, enter into debate, or vote* unless he/she relinquishes the chair first. *The President/Chairman can vote if the vote is by ballot or when his/her vote would alter the outcome of a vote (i.e. creating a tie vote to defeat a motion, or voting in favour of a motion so it passes), however if the President is a member, technically he/she does not lose his/her rights of membership, but simply will not exercise those rights in order to maintain the appearance of being impartial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Britton Posted September 10, 2014 at 03:39 PM Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 at 03:39 PM and a "Small Board" is defined as being comprised of up to thirteen members. Actually, it is defined as being comprised of "about" twelve. It is quite possible for a thirteen or fourteen member board to follow small board rules, just as it is quite possible for a board of ten or eleven to follow regular assembly rules; subject to the custom, rule or other method of decision by the particular assembly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted September 10, 2014 at 08:00 PM Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 at 08:00 PM Actually, it is defined as being comprised of "about" twelve. Actually, the phrase used in RONR is "not more than about a dozen". And that refers to the number of members present, not the total membership of the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted September 10, 2014 at 08:12 PM Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 at 08:12 PM Actually, the phrase used in RONR is "not more than about a dozen". And that refers to the number of members present, not the total membership of the board. Actually, RONR has conflicting provisions on what constitutes a small board. Starting on page 9 at line 33, RONR says: "Whenever reference is made in this book to ""small boards"", the size implied will depend somewhat on conditions, but such boards are usually be be understood as consisting of not more than about a dozen persons." Then, on page 487 starting on line 26, it says: "In a board meeting where there are not more than about a dozen members present. . . ." Obviously, the authorship team of RONR is granting some leeway on that issue and allowing boards (or the parent body) to decide for themselves whether to conduct their meetings in conformity with the "regular board" rules or the small board rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted September 10, 2014 at 08:18 PM Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 at 08:18 PM Actually, RONR has conflicting provisions on what constitutes a small board. I'm afraid the conflict eludes me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weldon Merritt Posted September 10, 2014 at 09:20 PM Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 at 09:20 PM I'm afraid the conflict eludes me. I think the confilct lies in whether the critical factor is the total size of the board (as implied on p. 9) or the number of members actually present (as stated on p. 487). But I agree that there is sufficient leeway that a boartd, or its parent assembly, can decide which way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted September 10, 2014 at 09:41 PM Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 at 09:41 PM I think the confilct lies in whether the critical factor is the total size of the board (as implied on p. 9) or the number of members actually present (as stated on p. 487). Ahh. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted September 22, 2014 at 06:31 PM Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 at 06:31 PM One thing we can be thankful for is that RONR does not use the nonsensical phrase "comprised of." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted September 25, 2014 at 08:57 AM Report Share Posted September 25, 2014 at 08:57 AM One thing we can be thankful for is that RONR does not use the nonsensical phrase "comprised of." Why don't we restrict ourselves to correcting one blunder per post. It will be a challenge, but I think we're upto it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted September 25, 2014 at 09:08 AM Report Share Posted September 25, 2014 at 09:08 AM One thing we can be thankful for is that RONR does not use the nonsensical phrase "comprised of." Why don't we restrict ourselves to correcting one blunder per post. It will be a challenge, but I think we're up to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted September 25, 2014 at 09:16 AM Report Share Posted September 25, 2014 at 09:16 AM (Maybe I better try installing Chrome again.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted September 29, 2014 at 12:23 PM Report Share Posted September 29, 2014 at 12:23 PM Why don't we restrict ourselves to correcting one blunder per post. It will be a challenge, but I think we're upto it. Why don't we restrict ourselves to correcting one blunder per post. It will be a challenge, but I think we're up to it. All evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.