Kim Goldsworthy

Members
  • Content count

    3,996
  • 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

1,403 profile views
  1. A1.) In general, for "ordinary acts of the society" (RONR's term): • Whatever is adopted, may be amended or rescinded. • And whatever is rejected, may be "renewed" (RONR's tem) in the next session (i.e., the next order of business). *** A2.) "Yes", in general. *** The only exceptions for the "general" case would be thing like previous notice, or a customized rule (e.g., bylaw, special rule of order, etc.). And it seems you have a customized rule in place: >> Only a No voting member could put the vote on the floor again at the same meeting, and refused.
  2. Statements S7, S5, S4, S3, are arguments supporting your position. Statements S1, S2, S6, are arguments supporting the officer's position. You have ambiguities. That is why a VOTE on a MOTION to ACCEPT a resignation is required. -- To avoid the inevitable "He Said, She Said" back-and-forth arguments. *** Robert's Rules of Order, if taken as the standard by which to judge, would imply that, since no acknowledgment by vote exists, then the minutes are in error, and therefore, the resignation has never been accepted. And, vice-versa, you may take S3, S4, S5, S7, and present a very good argument (!) that the officer is considered "resigned".
  3. For a parliamentary contest where points are taken off for off-The-Book methods, don't mess with short-cuts, else the judges will deduct a point. I know. I've been a judge. Short-cutting the plain application of the given parliamentary rule won't fly. *** See RONR for how to adopt a motion without debate, using Suspend the Rules and Unanimous Consent.
  4. The word "advisory" is used only once in RONR 11th edition (p. 465). And its reference has nothing to do with a vote. This scenario smells like a "straw vote" or "non-binding vote". Such things are dilatory under Robert's Rules of Order.
  5. "Fuzzy" describes your scenario, as there could be many unsaid facts in your post. In general: "No", merely uttering "I resign" is not sufficient, under the plain application of Robert's Rules of Order. There must be an official acknowledgment on behalf of the organization. -- LIke a motion 'to fill the vacancy'.
  6. To be technical, until the chair STATES THE QUESTION and thus PLACES THE MOTION BEFORE THE MEETING, the motion has no status. *** So, in your case, if the motion kind of "fell through the cracks", then the cleanest solution would be "to let sleeping dogs lie". *** See page 32 of RONR (Handling of a Motion).
  7. votes

    If Robert's Rules of Order applies, then: • written ballots are counted. (Of course.) • standing votes may or may not be a counted vote. (See RONR for the difference.) • oral votes are not counted. Whether "proxies" are involved or not, is not a relevant factor for the parliamentary rule. *** So, I must ask: Q. How are the votes being cast? -- (a.) By shouting 'aye'/'no', or (b.) by rising, or (c.) by ballot? By rule, sometimes the tellers MUST do an exact tally. -- Whether there are proxies or not. *** Any deviation from the default rule should be via an adopted motion. - So you better get it in before the tellers start counting!
  8. Yes. -- RONR says that committees exist until their charges are executed fully. • For a standing committee, they are never done, as their duty is to be at the ready, even if they have nothing at hand to do. (I am thinking of "judicial committees", which have nothing to do all year, typically, but are alert for a charge coming their way.) • For a special committee, they last until they give their final report, or until discharged (see motion "Discharge a Committee"). Thus, a newsletter editor, or a sergeant-at-arms, continues in his duty, until the appointing party says otherwise. -- By swapping personnel, or by eliminating the position completely (see "Amend Something Previously Adopted"). Or, when the duty is 100% executed, as would be the case for a Xmas Party Coodinator.
  9. I reply. • Yes, if you want. • No, if you don't want. *** You are not the parliamentarian of the organization. You are not the chairman. *** If you had been the parliamentarian, or if you had been the chairman, my answer would have been different. It is the duty of the chair to make rulings. And the chair made a ruling. Don't usurp the prerogative of the chair. Don't show-up the chair. *** Read page 250 (Section 23, "Point of Order"), lines 1 thru 10. There are options. Your original option is one I would not recommend.
  10. Answer: No. The chair should do all such admonishing OUTSIDE of the meeting hour, BEFORE the meeting. Your chair exhibited poor leadership skills, poor people skills. -- The time to prevent problems is before the meeting, not during a meeting. Your chair was out of order. Someone should have raised a Point of Order saying so. A disciplinary action against your chair may be appropriate.
  11. I have not read your bylaws. But when that phrase is used, it usually implies that there is a class of membership which cannot vote. Q. Does your organization have a class of membership which is defined as having "no vote"? If yes, then your "majority" rule is to be interpreted as implying, "Exclude the class of members who are not empowered to vote when counting ____ ." (a majority, or a quorum, etc.)
  12. According to Robert's Rules of Order, the complementary motion to "Lay on the Table" is "Take from the Table." See page 300 in RONR 11th edition. *** What you do after that is unclear. I don't know what you mean by "address one". -- Do you mean, debate it? Do you mean, kill it?
  13. If you are asking, "What does Robert's Rules of Order say about emails?", the answer is zilch. You violate no parliamentary rule when party A excludes party B in any letter, email, telegram, text, etc., to parties C, D, E, and so on. There is no quorum involved. There is no meeting involved. There is no previous notice involved. So no parliamentary rule is involved.
  14. And, so, Q. How is this different from just moving the Previous Question on all pending questions? Q. Why is P.Q. not sufficient?
  15. There is no penalty for allowing an erroneous ruling of the chair to go unchallenged. If no one cares enough to challenge the chair's ruling, then perhaps the issue is too small to raise a ruckus. You ought not enforce parliamentary rules which will not be supported by a majority. -- Perhaps the motion in question had so little support that no one bothered to care about Reconsideration.