Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

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

1,701 profile views
  1. Re-Voting

    Late brain storm . . . *** Perhaps the original poster is confusing: (a.) adopting the whole motion again, with modification; vs. (b.) adopting an AMENDMENT, whereby a single word (or more) is all that is "adopted" -- to be either INSERTED or to be STRUCK OUT. *** That would explain his "chain of custody" to fit a common practice. -- Upper echelon people say, "Tweak here, and tweak there, and we shall then rubber-stamp it as satisfactory." -- And the lower echelon people say, "OK. Will do." In such a case, the answer to the original question (of many) is "No, you don't vote on the whole enchilada again. -- You vote on the specific amendment." *** Or my hunch could be all wet.
  2. Re-Voting

    kg: "We"? Who is "we"? -- President? VP? Associate VP? Policy Committee? Department? kg: "Us"? Who is "us"? kg: If you are going to change one iota, then there must be a vote. -- Else, without a vote, no change has been "approved" by "you"(?!).
  3. Why not use the title of most applicability? If your VP is the chairman/chairwoman/chair of the X Committee, then why not say so?: "The chair of the X committee will now report." It would not make sense to have a VP present a report from the X committee, to the newbie attendee.
  4. Omitted motion in minutes

    I have a hunch. I think you are indirectly asking, "Can we edit old minutes?" The answer is "Yes, you can amend minutes which have long-since been approved." See the motion in Robert's Rules of Order, "Amend Something Previously Adopted".
  5. Committee members appointed by President, etc.

    The rule implies: 1.) approval via Inferior Body #1. AND 2.) ratification via Superior Body #2. *** Since a rule, "all powers of Body #2 are assumed by Body #1", would make nonsense of the appointment rule, then this "all powers" rule ought not be interpreted as implying that the approval rule is never to be triggered fully. (If it were, then the Board would be 100% shut out every time.) If one interpretation allowed both rules to be executed, and a competing interpretation makes a certain rule impossible to obey, then the first interpretation ought to prevail. *** I think the "all powers" rule is meant to be interpreted as ordinary acts of the body being usurped (here, your board), and not as one which excludes two other involved parties, namely, (a.) your president and (b.) your executive committee. Therefore, in my opinion: • Any rule which invokes a safety net ought to be allowed to function for its purpose. • Any rule which invokes multiple parties to agree -- prior to an action being made final -- ought to be allowed to exercised.
  6. Ex-Officio

    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.
  7. Unless Otherwise Provided by the Bylaws & RONR

    "... 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.)
  8. Fire Chief resignation

    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.
  9. Motion required or automatic per bylaws?

    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.
  10. Authority to suspend convention standing rule

    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.
  11. suspended president

    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.
  12. Mistake of Law vs Mistake of Fact Revisited

    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?
  13. Mistake of Law vs Mistake of Fact Revisited

    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.
  14. Mistake of Law vs Mistake of Fact Revisited