Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

aliris

Members
  • Posts

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

aliris's Achievements

  1. So.... given that this was not a plain-jane motion but a motion to amend something already adopted, does that change the ability to "just make the motion again"?
  2. Is there a codified definition of "long-noticed"? Since we're Brown-acted we post 72 hours in advance in multiple public places. As well, I happened to alert various folks via personal FB and the word was "out" flying about social media a good week or more in advance; but perhaps the informal pipeline doesn't count at all. I'm hoping the Brown Act provides a formal definition; is it adequate or is there another?
  3. phew! I'm astonished by the convolutions. And interested and appreciative of you-all's erudition.
  4. OMG changes "everything"?! I'm really sorry if I missed a critical point. I am so blown away by how hard and finicky this all is. The specific motion was to 'amend something already adopted' ... I believe. Is that the same as "reconsider" or not? Sorry but I am not used to so much precision in words. I believe "rescind" was not on the table but "amend" was. It was agendized and long-noticed so does that mean a majority rather than 2/3 was required? Because you're right, if 2/3 was required we definitely didn't discuss that and I don't think any of us knew it. But the matter was well-noticed, if that matters.
  5. BTW, just to add a little of the contentious-climate to the picture, the motion in question that reversed with exclusion of votes (potentially), was *already* a motion to reconsider something already adopted. So as you can imagine, tensions were high, as another noted, the reconsideration-vote fell out probably on "outcome" lines as much as anything, it was *not* adopted after delay, then, of the original motion, and reversing it again .... oh my what a mess. Though a slightly amusing-one given that the hyper-politicization is kind of the point too. Or at least some of why the reason is that if you blink, this may look like a mess and if you blink again, it may all look rather amusing. Blink again, and it's quite the teachable moment (maybe) ... blink again and you get in ethical hot-water I bet.
  6. "A member who is not in “good standing” is one whose rights are under disciplinary suspension. So far as RONR is concerned, members’ rights are only suspended if the member is disciplined through formal disciplinary procedures. At a certain point, the members’ rights may be suspended, at the society’s discretion. Some societies may provide that a member’s rights are automatically suspended if they are delinquent in their dues for a certain period of time, and they regain their rights when their dues are paid. Such a member is still eligible for membership, but he is not currently in “good standing” because his rights are under suspension. The requirement you refer to is more analogous to this than to eligibility requirements. " Mr Martin - yes this was what I was getting it in wondering about "committee" vs "board", wondering whether in actuality because this board is subservient to the Charter of LA which created it, and a Department in the City thereof, whether we then became essentially like a Committee, and we have members in "good standing" in this sense that you note. I really like Mr. Katz practical reminder that the point here is to run a meeting, not get tangled in debatable, conditional intricacies. I think that's his point, apologies if I'm getting that wrong. Again, given the political climate of hair-trigger fury and hyper-organization, holding that in mind is wise too. Mr. Novsielski is wise to remind me this does impinge on critical legalities and I suppose we may refer to the lawyers yet. I just hoped there was a clearer, non-ambiguous way forward and I think with the exception of Mr. Katz' perspective, this may not be as simple as I hoped. Thanks all, and I hope the details don't make this uninteresting to others in a generalized way.
  7. So many angles to consider; thank you! What, then, is the difference between a committee and a board? A committee is subservient to a board, right? The board can presumably impose contingencies for eligibility. I wonder then if these neighborhood councils are actually more like committees, contingent on a hierarchically imposed eligibility criteria? But .... board members' elections get "certified". Yet to be a voting member requires "good standing" aka "eligibility".
  8. BTW - I'm not confused by the principle of the Brown Act, but by its practice on occasion and also its unintended consequences which strike me often, ironically, as achieving the opposite of its aims. All of which I'm willing to believe is related to my misunderstanding or subpar execution.... And Mr. Martin - yes, that is absolutely perfect. A person could learn a lot about precision-writing studying your summary; thank you!
  9. well, yeah. But the size of various NCs is different, one near is us is over 200 ppl I'm told (that sounds wrong though; hard to imagine how that could work). Ours is 13. Let's say just 10 on average, that's 10^3 members. More to the point it would be construed as pretty hostile (I really don't know why but it is). So .... life's long, I'll just learn what I can for the future. But my point is that this comparatively inconsequential watered-down copy has strong institutional support, giving it an instant advantage (immediately lost by its poor quality). Thanks.
  10. lol y'all are helping me to feel better. I'm a rank novice but from my POV it's quite difficult to get going with any real speed on parliamentary rules when it's watered to the point of unhelpfulness by Rosenberg, as pointed out. The time spent scratching one's head trying to figure out the baby-version winds up being longer than it would just have been to figure out the real-deal. Unfortunately, Los Angeles' grand experiment in populist democracy, its huge Neighborhood Council (NC) system, is encouraging this practice wholesale among its 97 I think the number is now up to, NCs. Here: http://empowerla.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Rules-Standards-and-Best-Practices-final_0925122.pdf My own NC has changed its bylaws with every new chair to reflect RONR, then Rosenberg, then back again -- we've been through probably 6 iterations of this. More time-wasting better spent just getting it right once IMHO. Learning it the right way may be hard but at least its proscribed. All the fuzzy edges are ironically, hardest to deal with when you know the least.
  11. Yes, precisely. I had to start digging around for the definition of "agenda item" and I don't even know if/when I'm allowed to resort to RONR definitions. Doing things half-way almost always winds up just being more time-consuming, frustrating, spirit-quenching, cynicism-driving .... all the things one doesn't want in bootstrapping public governmental participation. Frustrating.
  12. Thanks, everyone, for your responses. I am not expert of any sort, but I have read all of Rosenberg's (easy) and RONR (not so much) yet couldn't agree more. I don't see the point of adding a layer of close-but-no-cigar to RONR, never mind RONRIB. I'm not in charge though. And I appreciate your insight into the reality-on-the-ground. I guess I will just keep tucked away under my hat an objection as a point of order in the future should an amendment come up with public comment disallowed on the grounds of fairness, understanding it is the chair's to rule on. The grounds being that should the amendment appreciably change the motion, then the public if allowed to comment formerly, must be allowed to again.
  13. Our local community council tries to allow the general public to weigh in on issues of importance (and controversy). We generally follow Rosenberg's rules superseded by Robert's when necessary. I understand public comment to come after an agenda item is announced and reported on, and clarifications made, but before a motion is moved and seconded. However what if a motion is amended? That happens after the original motion is stated, but shouldn't the amendment be subject to the same clarification-public comment preliminary conversation? I understand public comment is never required under Robert's, but if it is allowed for a motion, shouldn't it be also allowed for an amended (or substituted) motion?
×
×
  • Create New...