Kim Goldsworthy

Members
  • Content count

    3,931
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Kim Goldsworthy

  • Birthday 08/24/1956

Profile Information

  • Location
    Rosemead, Calif.
  • Interests
    Chess; Baseball; English language (etymology; grammar); Philosophy

Recent Profile Visitors

1,230 profile views
  1. Robert's Rules of Order specifies that the VP instantly and automatically becomes P upon the sitting president's vacating the office. *** If your VP cannot serve as P, then you next step is to hold a by-election (an in-between election) to fill the vacancy. The rule is, "The body who did the original electing of a given office is the body who is authorized to fill vacancies in that given office."
  2. Your question is not well-formed. -- It is improper to "accept minutes" under the preferred method of Robert's Rules of Order. **** It is like asking, "Who should run to first base if the goalie makes a touchdown." -- There is no "who" in such a question, as the action itself is irregular.
  3. The rule is, an assembly should not be forced to entertain the identical motion, or nearly-identical motion, twice in the same session. But if they do, then that is the choice of the assembly. No one raised a timely point of order. -- So, no one cared if the identical concept was re-entertained. *** You say the previous motion failed, but the same motion but with a smaller dollar total was adopted. Okay. So, the adopted motions stands.
  4. #4 and #5 and #6 are poor decisions, a waste of time. You don't need a committee for #4, and there isn't any clarification necessary for #5. And #6 isn't true, so it should not be the choice, since no choosing is necessary. The committee should report out that there are two factions to satisfy, and the committee cannot choose between factions. So, two kinds of motions are recommended, with the parent assembly taking the brunt of the force with the assembly's own choice between the two conflicting motions. The committee need not commit its own emotional risks, political risks, etc., to any single motion. There is no need to "take sides". *** Like a chef, offer two courses. Let the patrons who dine and who pay the check cherry pick the meal to chew on. The chef doesn't care which meal is the favorite, only that each meal is ready-to-eat.
  5. RONR fails to suggest any "qualification for office" for membership on a Minutes Approval Committee. Since there is no prohibition, then I would opine that a Secretary may be so appointed. *** But I see it as almost useless, as the secretary already has provided as much information as the Secretary can. -- I think a Secretary can only provide redundant information, and not new, improved information. You want a party of people to "proof" the minutes. The original author is in the poorest position to scrutinize, criticize, blue-pencil, etc., his own document.
  6. Q. What is an "address"? Is this some kind of speech? Is it some kind of committee report or officer report?
  7. I am of the opposite opinion. If a person serves even one day in the office of president, then, no matter how this person vacates the office of president, this person is, by definition, a "past president". There is no getting around that. -- Death, resignation, expulsion, natural exhaustion of the defined term-of-office -- it makes no difference if this party is alive or dead. This person is a past president, and, if the timing is right, the immediate past president. *** >> We do have a Past President position. Look to your own rules as to what to do when no one is capable of serving in a position where there is only one party who is qualified for such an office.
  8. By himself? If the board decision was an ordinary act of the board (like a majority vote on some policy), then no individual may rescind or countermand the decision of a board.
  9. mr

    If the member who is questioning the amendment is asking for the chair's opinion, then use Parliamentary Inquiry, and get the chair's opinion. If the member who is questioning the amendment is pointing out a violation of a parliamentary rule, then use Point of Order, and compel the chair to issue a ruling on the Point of Order, and possbily lead to an Appeal from the Decision of the Chair. Q. What does the inquiring member wish? -- An opinion? A ruling?
  10. Yes, you would be correct, most likely. Look at it this way: Q. Did both bodies, general membership plus Executive Board, both invoke the bylaws' method of amendment to insert new House Rules? A. No. Therefore, the House Rules cannot be part of the bylaws. The printed document must be a convenient compilation of two sets of rules, as a courtesy to new members, or a courtesy to general readers.
  11. Until "notification". Example: A phone call can take 20 seconds. So, if the winner is notified by phone, they have 20 (or so) seconds to accept or decline. *** If you use a slower method of notification, then you may have to wait days. It's up to you.
  12. I bet you that the author of the "House Rules" is your Governing Board. -- Right? If my bet is correct, then, "No", an inferior body cannot give itself power, through rules of its own making, to override the power of the superior body, the general membership. *** If the general membership is the author of the House Rules, then I may re-think my answer.
  13. "Same meeting"? Notice is still good, for that same meeting.
  14. I don't know what you would need, other than a room to meet. The secretary mails the notices. What else is there? -- Notice is mailed, and a room is rented. I would think you would ask the owners of the meeting hall (the hotel?) what details are left to be negotiated.
  15. I find this interesting. • The assembly can give itself oral notice. No standing and getting the attention of the chair. No interrupting the chair. No mailed notice. No sending in letters to secretaries. This is a development I did not see coming, per the existing language of page 121 & 122. You don't even have to call it a "notice". -- Just adopt a motion, and, "wham!", ". . . It's as simple as that . . .". *** Q. If all it takes for "the assembly is to give itself notice" is to adopt a motion, then why can't this adoption thing carry over to non-revision situations? Is the act of adopting a motion the act of giving notice, or potentially so, in other cases?