Kim Goldsworthy

  • Content count

  • 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

1,525 profile views
  1. No. If a position is defined as a BOARD position, then there is no automatic carry-over to GENERAL MEMBERSHIP. Likewise: If a position is defined as a GENERAL MEMBERSHIP position, then there is no automatic carry-over to BOARD. To cover the other dropping shoe: If a position is defined as an organization-wide position, i.e., without a MEETING BODY to which it is tied, then the position is probably a generic position, as may be the case with "president" or "secretary", in most organizations. (Beware: some organizations do such draw a line.) *** Example: If a university board of trustees includes the governor of the state as an ex officio member of the board of trustees, the governor is not automatically on any sub-body.
  2. "... legal ..."? I doubt any responder will be able to answer the 50 question for the 50 states in the U.S., regarding whether that state's corporations code will be satisfied by a set of bylaws specifying a parliamentary authority. *** Analogy. If my bylaws reference wikipedia for its definition of "majority vote" or "To Reconsider", then, "Is 'Wikipedia' considered 'bylaws'?" (I don't think so. A parliamentary authority is just that -- a set of parliamentary rules which are consistent with themselves, and which fill gaps which otherwise would be overridden by a superior rule.)
  3. Typically, there are two arrangements which are most seen. • If the board is empowered to handle resignations, then the board will probably be empowered to fill vacancies. • If the board is not empowered to handle resignation, then the board will probably lack the power to fill vacancies. But your constitution & bylaws, in its delegation of duties, ought to say which of the above typical arrangements is YOUR arrangement. Theoretically, the arrangement might be a mix: (a.) board can accept resignations; but (b.) board orders a special election via the general membership. So, you have 2 elements to look for in your documents of governance: (1.) handling resignations, (2.) filling vacancies.
  4. Your question is one of English syntax and grammar, not a question of parliamentary procedure. *** "DIRECTOR EXEMPT. Any Director who has served two (2) or more full terms and wishes to remain active on the Board of Directors shall have the option of assuming the position of Director Exempt." *** Q. Who has the "option of assuming"? A. Any director (who has fulfilled the stated requirement). *** Q. Does the Board have the "option of assuming"? A. No. Only certain directors have the "option of assuming". The board has no "option" and the board cannot "assume". The board has not been given any power to "take away the option" nor "countermand the assumption". *** From the above, it appears that the decision is a unilateral decision, to be uttered, or written, only by certain directors.
  5. It would appear that your organization has MIS-PLACED its "convention standing rules" into the wrong document ("policy manual"). A convention standing rule is a rule which a convention adopts, or at least recognizes and applies as a convention rule. • A board cannot impose standing rules upon a convention (of a non-board body). If you have a rule which says that your board creates policies exclusively, then the board ought not clutter up its policy manual with rules which cannot truly be adopted (or enforced, or acknowledged, or suspended, etc.) by your board. *** Since rules are suspended based on its KIND, then a standing rule is suspendable, assuming the rule is recognized as such. *** If your convention standing rule is "in the nature of a rule of order", then the rule is still suspendable.
  6. Analogy. The situation is parallel with a SECRETARY who is in the hospital with a coma. -- The organization itself never loses the ability to execute the abandoned duties of the secretary. The organization must re-delegate secretarial duties to a volunteer or pinch-hitter, like another officer, or even a non-officer. Or even a committee. Who else is going to execute (a.) the stuffing of envelopes? (b.) the purchase of postage? (c.) the travel expense of going to the post office? No organization "loses" the ability to execute #a, #b, #c, just because the bylaws delegate those duties to a specific officer (who is now in no position to fulfill those duties). *** So it is with a PRESIDENT. So it is with a TREASURER. • Whatever duty is abandoned, is a duty which must be re-delegated. • No single officer can hold hostage the entire organization. • Abandoned duties may be re-absorbed by the organization, and then re-delegated to a real human being who is going to do the actual physical work.
  7. What if . . . *** On a certain Date D1, the chair takes a vote. The assembly hears the chair announce numbers N1 and N2 and say, "There is not two-thirds in the affirmative. The motion is rejected." And the meeting continues onward toward adjournment. *** On a certain Date D2, the chair takes a vote. The assembly hears the chair announce numbers N1 and N2 (exact same two numbers as were heard and counted on Date D1!) and say, "There are two-thirds in the affirmative. The motion is adopted." And the meeting continues onward toward adjournment. *** Q. Without telling you the values of N1 and N2, does the reader agree that both actions (viz., adoption on D1, rejection on D2) stand as announced by the chair?
  8. Because you can only appeal a RULING of the chair. You cannot appeal physical facts, mathematical facts, logical facts. You cannot appeal the vision of the chair, nor the hearing of the chair, nor the taste, smell, touch, of the chair.
  9. Analogy:
  10. Viz., "There are 15 in the affirmative, and 10 in the negative. There are two thirds in the affirmative, and the motion is adopted." Q. How does the extra wording change the question asked? change the answer given?
  11. There is nothing wrong with interim positions. Look at it this way. When an officer dies, the organization does not lose the ability to function. Thus, if a secretary dies, the organization does not lose the ability to create minutes (or, to stuff envelopes, or to type correspondence, etc.) Thus, if a sergeant-at-arms dies, the organization does not lose the ability to station guards at the door. Thus, if a treasurer dies, the organization does not lose the ability to deposit checks and to pay monthly bills. Thus, if the president dies, the organization does not lose the ability to preside over meetings (nor lose the ability to rule on points of order, etc.). *** Until the vacancy of the dead officer is filled with a qualified person, then someone must be appointed to take on the duties of the dead officer, but with no perqs of office. -- Because the "pinch-hitter" or "temporary worker bee" is (a.) NOT IN OFFICE, and (b.) NOT SITTING ON THE BOARD, and (c.) IS NOT COMPLETING ANY TERM-OF-OFFICE. The board (or the party responsible) must still, sooner or later, fill the vacancy with a person who is qualified to hold that office. But until that happens, the organization may function. It just has to delegate. No big deal.
  12. Good question. Let me make an analogy. *** Assume an original main motion, "Resolved, To [paint red] the XYZ association". -- Assume it is adopted in the year 1999. Once fully executed, once the paint dries, and once time passes, and you then wish to make a serious change in 2017, you don't move "To Rescind the 1999 resolution." What do you do? You move a new main motion, "To [verb] the XYZ association." (fill in the verb: "paint green"? "paint blue"? "strip and varnish"?)
  13. The chair's announcement stands. "After the meeting" is too late to raise the Point of Order.
  14. Read your bylaws. It could well be that 100% of the control of the organization lies with the board, and the general membership is left with (typically) two areas of authority, (a.) amending the bylaws; (b.) electing its board. And nothing else. You'll find that homeowners associations are (typically) crippled in membership rights, likewise. -- The Board is the local god, and the general membership are peons, left with bread crumbs. So, READ YOUR BYLAWS, and look for the split of powers.
  15. If you are asking if there is a default (Robertian) "sunset law", then the answer is "no". *** E.g., if a board sets the dues for the organization for $N, then the dues are set forever at $N, until the board (or the appropriate body responsible for the setting of dues) either RESCINDS or AMENDS that resolution. -- Or amends the bylaws to change the method itself of "setting dues". E.g., if a board endorses Mr. X for Position P, then that support is forever, or until there is • no more Mr. X, or • no more Position P, or • no more relationship between Mr. X and Position P.