Gary c Tesser

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Gary c Tesser

  • Rank
    aspiring parliamentarian ($4.50 / hr, but I can deal)

Profile Information

  • Location
    Brooklyn NY USA
  • Interests
    I'm interested in finding out how to set "status". I'm also interested in advising everybody not to post their birthdate, because it just makes it easier for criminals .

Recent Profile Visitors

902 profile views
  1. The post of Posted Thursday at 02:24 PM makes it clear that it is ambiguous as to what the team is authorized to do. -- That is, unless the bylaws do say something about it, which the original post suggests: ... So, Guest Duey, what do you see in the bylaws (explictly, verbatim, please, with my heart in my mouth) that says that the team cannot buy properties? By the same token, how was the team, put in place to acquire properties, put in place?
  2. Oh for pity's sake , stop: you can thank everyone, but it's not nearly done.
  3. I always pay attention. But lamentably I so rarely remember. And who could anticipate that you would be awake before your bedtime again?
  4. I agree with this opinion, but, before asserting it, I would prefer to ask Guest Shawn Terris how he thinks they are, indeed, applicable. (O yes indeed I notice that the discussion is a week stale. Alas.)
  5. Yes, because of the likelihood that it protects absentees, who would not have otherwise skipped their child's or parents' wedding to attend the meeting if they thought there might be a contested election.
  6. Whoop! That's news. Is it stated, or inferable, from p. 124 - 125? Can they really put this on my RP test?
  7. It might be a minor point, if what your concern is that what was done at the meeting seems to have been invalid (so do you care whether the meeting -- the structure -- is called valid or invalid, when we're saying that the content of the meeting -- what was done -- was intrinsically invalid? -- geeez, what a question!). (O darnit, I have entirely lost track. Are there any loose ends here?)
  8. The used-dictionary salesman.
  9. It's a joke, of little consequence. When comic books are published, usually monthly, each publication is referred to as an issue. On the other hand, when Robert's Rules is Newly Revised every ten years or so, as it more-or-less has been since 1970, it's a new edition.
  10. Why is this not the beginning and the end of the matter? Where do these tenured members and past officers get these ideas?
  11. Yeesh. That too.
  12. We call it the 11th "Edition," but as a long-time comic-book fan, I grin at your usage.
  13. Was everyone notified?
  14. Do you have an organizational chart that you can upload, so as to spare me a few hours of constructing my own? More fundamentally: Robert's Rules considers an executive committee to be "a board within a board" of the board of directors (equivalently called a board of trustees &c). It looks as if your organization uses these terms differently. Also, your topic title asks about the executive board and the board of trustees, but the text of your post doesn't mention the executive board. So maybe I really do need to see the organizational chart, or a glossary. But, you ask: and: and: So where in your rules do you think he couldn't legally hold both positions; and what would be the conflict of interest; and why would he have to vacate the position of trustee? Is he somehow also the commander? Also, and perhaps even more fundamentally, maybe abusing my fundament, you say: ... so I ask, how have you established this? A bylaws provision? custom? precedent from a ruling derived from some trial by combat? (I grope for a connection with Robert's Rules in all this, which gives me some kind of sinking feeling....)