Steeves Posted May 3, 2013 at 06:53 PM Author Report Share Posted May 3, 2013 at 06:53 PM Oh, no way, man. You're way off on this one, GG. I tend not to be a huge believer in this "love at first sight" crap, but I have to side with Steeves on this one. This place is something else. I love it, too. (Even if - I confess - I have been a bit neglectful of it lately...)Take THAT Mr Novosielski!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louise Posted May 3, 2013 at 07:16 PM Report Share Posted May 3, 2013 at 07:16 PM Take THAT Mr Novosielski!!Oh dear. Mr. Steeves, you've committed the classic novice RONR forums error of conflating our two eminent Garys: Mr. Novosielski and Mr. Tesser.It was the latter Gary who is grumpy today...or at least, he was grumpy yesterday. (I'm not sure how he's feeling today.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steeves Posted May 3, 2013 at 07:40 PM Author Report Share Posted May 3, 2013 at 07:40 PM Oh dear. Mr. Steeves, you've committed the classic novice RONR forums error of conflating our two eminent Garys: Mr. Novosielski and Mr. Tesser.It was the latter Gary who is grumpy today...or at least, he was grumpy yesterday. (I'm not sure how he's feeling today.)It is Ms Steeves, thank you Can I plead "not enough caffeine in the system" or should I just throw myself on the mercy of the court? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louise Posted May 3, 2013 at 07:49 PM Report Share Posted May 3, 2013 at 07:49 PM It is Ms Steeves, thank you Can I plead "not enough caffeine in the system" or should I just throw myself on the mercy of the court? I would opt for the latter. That's what I did when I was charged with the same offense.They seem rather forgiving here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steeves Posted May 3, 2013 at 10:51 PM Author Report Share Posted May 3, 2013 at 10:51 PM I would opt for the latter. That's what I did when I was charged with the same offense.They seem rather forgiving here.I throw my coffee on the mercy of the court! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted May 3, 2013 at 11:37 PM Report Share Posted May 3, 2013 at 11:37 PM It is Ms Steeves, thank you Thanks for the clarification. That certainly explains a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted May 3, 2013 at 11:40 PM Report Share Posted May 3, 2013 at 11:40 PM I've been reading this forum and have fallen in love!One can only hope those two events are unrelated.With that assumption, condolences for the former and congratulations on the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Vince The Secretary Posted April 12, 2014 at 10:07 AM Report Share Posted April 12, 2014 at 10:07 AM My question about IPP is this. At the AGM all positions are declared vacant. Therefore to me the person who was president before that declaration of vacancy becomes the IPP. should that IPP then stand again for president, I pose that if elected the president is both president and the IPP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted April 12, 2014 at 10:19 AM Report Share Posted April 12, 2014 at 10:19 AM My question about IPP is this. At the AGM all positions are declared vacant. Therefore to me the person who was president before that declaration of vacancy becomes the IPP. should that IPP then stand again for president, I pose that if elected the president is both president and the IPP. There is no such thing in RONR as a "declaration of vacancy". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted April 12, 2014 at 10:52 AM Report Share Posted April 12, 2014 at 10:52 AM There is no such thing in RONR as a "declaration of vacancy". But "immediate past president" doesn't bother you any more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted April 12, 2014 at 11:03 AM Report Share Posted April 12, 2014 at 11:03 AM Sure it does. But "declaration of vacancy" is worse (unless you have a rule that defines it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted April 12, 2014 at 12:52 PM Report Share Posted April 12, 2014 at 12:52 PM But "immediate past president" doesn't bother you any more? I don't think it ever did. Vince The Secretary tells us that, at his organization's AGM, all "positions are declared vacant", which means to him that the person who was president before that declaration of vacancy becomes the immediate past president upon the making of that declaration. It is this declaration that is entirely foreign to RONR, and so RONR has nothing to say about whether this notion is right or wrong. There is, of course, such a thing in RONR as making and adopting a motion to "declare the chair vacant and proceed to elect a new chairman" when the desire of the assembly is to oust a chairman pro tem. I'll opine that, upon the adoption of such a motion, the person who was ousted becomes the immediate past chairman pro tem, if you think it helps any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted April 12, 2014 at 01:16 PM Report Share Posted April 12, 2014 at 01:16 PM .... I'll opine that, upon the adoption of such a motion, the person who was ousted becomes the immediate past chairman pro tem, if you think it helps any. I don't think it achieves the level or a fred or a wilma, but it's game enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 13, 2016 at 03:37 AM Report Share Posted March 13, 2016 at 03:37 AM Our president has just tendered his resignation, with 9 months remaining in his term. According to our Bylaws, the 1st VP becomes Pres and shall remain as such for 9 months. Many in the org suggest that the Past President's term is also complete, and his replacement ought to be appointed in accordance with the bylaws. Your thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weldon Merritt Posted March 13, 2016 at 03:42 AM Report Share Posted March 13, 2016 at 03:42 AM My thought is that you should post your question as a new topic, instead of piggy-backing on one that is almost two years old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 13, 2016 at 03:57 AM Report Share Posted March 13, 2016 at 03:57 AM Thank-you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.