David A Foulkes Posted September 12, 2011 at 10:53 PM Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 at 10:53 PM ...Or a majority of the entire membership (of the Board) which since there are only 7 Board members that would probably be the easiest vote to getGnats! That always trips me up. Thanks!Bangs fist on forehead... M-E-M.... M-E-M.... M-E-M........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bob W Posted September 12, 2011 at 10:55 PM Report Share Posted September 12, 2011 at 10:55 PM If my motion passed, the only thing that would then be left to be voted on that the Chairperson wanted added to my motion would have been that a particular contractor be excluded from bidding for the work. The Chairperson could then have made that motion after my motion passed. To further confuse the issue, we already have a proposal from that contractor anyway for the work but their proposal is 9 months old which may not still be a valid proposal but it would be close to what any new proposal they would be making anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted September 13, 2011 at 02:38 AM Report Share Posted September 13, 2011 at 02:38 AM I have the 1982 version of Robert's Rules of Order.There is no 1982 version. You might have a later printing of the 8th edition (1981) or you might have a third-party knockoff. Either way, I'd suggest you order the 11th edition soon. It is due later this month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bob W Posted September 13, 2011 at 02:58 AM Report Share Posted September 13, 2011 at 02:58 AM I have the "Robert's Rules of Order The Standard Guide to Parliamentary Procedure Ilustrated by Will Eisner" paperback published in 1982 by Poor House Press, Tamarac Florida, A Bantam Book. It says on the inside cover - This edition contains the complete text of the original hardcover edition NOTONE WORD HAS BEEN OMITTED. So I think this book is the complete and original text of the original Robert's Rules of Order. I was just on Amazon.com getting ready to order the 10th edition. Thank you for the heads up that there is an 11th edition coming. I'll wait for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted September 13, 2011 at 03:07 AM Report Share Posted September 13, 2011 at 03:07 AM I have the "Robert's Rules of Order The Standard Guide to Parliamentary Procedure Ilustrated by Will Eisner" paperback published in 1982 by Poor House Press, Tamarac Florida, A Bantam Book.The official editions are titled "Robert's Rules of Order" (for the 1st-3rd editions), "Robert's Rules of Order Revised" (for the 4th-6th editions), and "Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised" (for the 7th edition onward). If there are any additional words in the title, that's a red flag that the edition is either a reprinting of an edition no longer in copyright (most commonly, the 4th edition) or a knockoff based off such an edition.So I think this book is the complete and original text of the original Robert's Rules of Order.Well, the foreword I found on Amazon's look inside feature says it's based off the 1893 edition, which would actually be the 3rd edition. That is, of course, still a very old book. That was back before it was even "Revised," let alone "Newly Revised." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bob W Posted September 13, 2011 at 03:47 AM Report Share Posted September 13, 2011 at 03:47 AM Yes, it looks like I have the 1893 version. I found the kindle version of my book on Amazon which shows the inside cover. The 11th edition is available for pre-order on Amazon and is being released on 9/27/11. Josh, thanks for the info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted September 13, 2011 at 03:44 PM Report Share Posted September 13, 2011 at 03:44 PM The problem here would have been that, if your motion were adopted, the Chair's (oh so very similar motion) would have been out of order as a main motion. (p. 106 l. 26-31; p. 332 l. 19-22) Gnats, again. See tinted p. 8, motion 13, and p. 74, l. 33-35. ASPA is a main motion -- an incidental main motion. It's perhaps a technical point, but it's one that you're ready to master. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bob W Posted September 13, 2011 at 04:08 PM Report Share Posted September 13, 2011 at 04:08 PM Yes, I suppose if I wanted to amend the motion previously adopted (ASPA) which excluded getting a proposal from that particular contractor who was excluded I could do that at our next meeting. But at that point we will already have proposals from other contractors to consider and wouldn't want to wait another month to consider hiring someone. And we actually do have an old proposal from the contractor who was excluded from bidding so if the other bids come in way higher than his old bid then someone could make a motion to hire that contractor based on his old proposal assuming he would honor his old bid which I believe he would. So really this whole business with my motion, withdrawal of a second, my motion failing for lack of a second and remaking of the motion by the Chairperson is "much ado about nothing" except for the procedural errors which occurred. At least I'm more knowldegeable now to know how to deal with such an issue should it occur again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.