Guest LoganLady

false accusation
Can accuser read accusation and then participate in vote against accused?

51 posts in this topic

On 8/7/2017 at 7:10 PM, LoganLady said:

I still say my method would have saved a lot of problems. 

O LoganLady, I would love to visit you.  But not in Sing Sing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/6/2017 at 7:47 PM, LoganLady said:

I'm ticked off enough to take care of the DD and enjoy a nice retirement in a comfy 5' x 9' steel apartment with cable television, a bunk bed, and a stack of little debbie snack cakes.

I so sympathize, but please don't.

If you were a redhead, I would marry you and have your baby on the spot.  So get a grip.  At least one of us ought to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/6/2017 at 7:03 PM, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

Members do not have the right to read from papers without permission of the assembly, nor do they have the right to unilaterally prefer charges without such a provision in the bylaws. Furthermore, a motion is not before the assembly until the chair puts it there, and members certainly do not have the right to conduct a vote except in very limited circumstances of malfeasance by the chair

This is lighting a cigarette in a gale.

On 8/6/2017 at 7:03 PM, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

That being said, if your president could summon no more than shocked silence in the face of this onslaught, perhaps it is time for a new presi

What, a civilized decent person being stunned by monstrous nastiness?  She being competently prepared to preside over a meeting with normal meeting business, but not for crazy disruptive antics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Gary c Tesser said:
On 8/7/2017 at 7:10 PM, LoganLady said:

I still say my method would have saved a lot of problems. 

She wants to kill someone, and maybe they deserve it (and I think I agree), but I council her to refrain.

2 minutes ago, SaintCad said:

Can I point out that I am completely lost in this lovefest between Logan and Gary?

Can someone translate what happened?

We are not married yet.

She is very coy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

O, and incidentally, there are parliamentary questions, if I can remember any of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/7/2017 at 1:59 AM, SaintCad said:

Second, I suggest you read up on RONR for making Points of Order, the rules of debate and calling members to order (p 645-646).  Also nothing is as powerful as bringing a copy of RONR with you because I will guaranty they will claim that they have the power to do what they want.  They should be challenged by the Chair to point out in the book where they get this power.  It need not be confrontational, merely "What page in the book are you referring to."

No, no, no.  Absolutely not. This would be fundamentally abandoning, by the chairwoman, her authority, and her duty, to conduct the meeting properly and efficiently.

She does not need to ask them anything -- in the book or anywhere else.

She conducts the meeting:  efficiently, smoothly, fairly, honestly, democratically, &c. -- but, as the representative of the assembly, she is The Law.

If they have a problem with what she says, they can raise a Point Of Order.  Otherwise, shut up and sit still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/7/2017 at 1:59 AM, SaintCad said:

I'm also confused, were the accused not allowed to vote?  Under whose authority?  EVERY member has a right to vote.

Yes, of course.  But you buried this fundamental point inside a lot of gunk, like the minutiae of Calling The Question, so I figured to tell this lovely Marine Corps lady to just start over.  And, consequently, as I said, no disrespect.  You wouldn't be the first gibbering idiot to post on the Robert's Rules Website Forum (I got here way before you did).

Edited by Gary c Tesser
minutiae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going back a bit (I think last Sunday,,,) ...

On 8/6/2017 at 7:47 PM, LoganLady said:

 The one DD is a tiny little yippy-chihuahua type gal that won't let anyone speak so I'm not surprised that neither the Treasurer or Pres could speak.  't

The presiding officer needs to know to nip this crap in the bud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/6/2017 at 6:36 PM, Guest LoganLady said:

The ladies who read the accusations did vote but accused were not given an opportunity to did not.  ... Can the accusers have unlimited opportunities to repeat charges? If accusers vote why can't accused vote?
Thanks

Come on, LoganLady.  However were the accused prevented from voting?  What, the accusers said they can't, and everyone sat still for this?  You all sexagenarians and octogenarians, and you sit still for this crap (I acknowledge that it can be painful to stand up) from these teenagers (40-y-o &c)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Gary c Tesser said:

The presiding officer needs to know to nip this crap in the bud.

I agree. Referring to a member as "a tiny little yippy-chihuahua type gal" is never to be tolerated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/6/2017 at 6:36 PM, Guest LoganLady said:

The motion to sanction did not pass but i

LoganLady, is this the bottom line?  Is this how things stand now, with the organization?

Either way, have you read RONR, 11th Edition, Chapter Twenty, yet?  (Have you hit your head on a wall yet?  I have.  Not your head, mine.  I have no idea what state or country your head is in.  But for that matter, I have no idea what state my own head is in.

(Perhaps I digress. 

(Wups, the INternet says Mr Honemann is going to spank me again.  Let's go look.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:
32 minutes ago, Gary c Tesser said:

 

I agree. Referring to a member as "a tiny little yippy-chihuahua type gal" is never to be tolerated. 

I don't think we do agree.  This yippy-dog stuff is just someone's opinion, voiced outside of a meeting, and not even that of the president.  I'm certainly going to tolerate it.  And I think you would too if you took that damn frumpy tie off and let the grandchildren tickle you so you drop that frown.

Your fan,

Gary

Edited by Gary c Tesser
tickling the prose, let the grandchildren tickle the grumpy-looking guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the beginning --

On 8/6/2017 at 6:36 PM, Guest LoganLady said:

The motion to sanction did not pass but

 

On 8/6/2017 at 6:59 PM, J. J. said:

What do your bylaws list as the term of office. Quote the clause exa

The motion did not pass.  Whatever difference does the term of office make?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Gary c Tesser said:

The motion did not pass.  Whatever difference does the term of office make?

Well, I suppose knowing what the bylaws say about the term of office of these officers' may be relevant to any attempt to respond to the question asked concerning whether or not it will be in order for the accusers to make the motion again at a later session.

But I also suppose that I'm not the only one who has grown tired of LoganLady's diatribes, and so I suggest that the Administrator put a lock on them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

suggest that the Administrator put a lock on them. 

I certainly hope he does not.

(O Dan, our first quarrel.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Gary c Tesser said:

This is lighting a cigarette in a gale.

There certainly is no shortage of wind in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SaintCad said:

I move that the thread be locked and Gary & Logan continue their courting via PM.

Your jealousy (or envy, I'm not sure which is which) noted, you adorable sock-puppet-face you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, LoganLady said:

Section 1

Th National officers of the {x}  (except the National Secretary, National Inspector, National Counselor, National Field Officer, National Press Correspondent and National Senior Aid who are appointed by the National President) shall be elected annually at the National Convention by written or a printed ballot unless such ballot is dispensed with by unanimous consent.  The three members elected by the National Convention annually constitute the Executive Board for the year, of which the Chairman shall be elected first, the other two members shall be elected collectively, on on ballot - numbered according to votes received.  To be elected to an office in the {x}, one must be present to give consent or give consent through a letter.  

Based on this section, and assuming the bylaws are silent on the subject of removing officers from office, it is not in order to simply make a motion to remove the President and Treasurer from office. Formal disciplinary procedures would be required. Such procedures are found in RONR, 11th ed., Ch. XX. If and when it comes to a vote on removal (which is the final step in a lengthy disciplinary process), the accused is required to leave the room and is not permitted to vote. There is no "accuser" in the disciplinary procedures in RONR - the society itself determines whether to press charges, based on the recommendation of the investigative committee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

Based on this section, and assuming the bylaws are silent on the subject of removing officers from office, it is not in order to simply make a motion to remove the President and Treasurer from office. Formal disciplinary procedures would be required. Such procedures are found in RONR, 11th ed., Ch. XX. If and when it comes to a vote on removal (which is the final step in a lengthy disciplinary process), the accused is required to leave the room and is not permitted to vote. There is no "accuser" in the disciplinary procedures in RONR - the society itself determines whether to press charges, based on the recommendation of the investigative committee.

Well, I guess the person moving to approve the recommendations of the investigative committee could be called the accuser. But even then that doesn't mean the person agrees with the recommendations but simply that he/she wants a resolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

Based on this section, and assuming the bylaws are silent on the subject of removing officers from office, it....

Thank hevvins, Josh, I been waiting all bloody day for you.

Edited by Gary c Tesser
add "bloody," and it's a euphemism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/6/2017 at 6:36 PM, Guest LoganLady said:

The ladies who read the accusations did vote but accused were not given an opportunity to did not.  Is it correct to allow accusers who read a written accusation to vote in the motion to proceed?  ... If accusers vote why can't accused vote?

OK, back to the beginning.  (I concede I think Mr Awful Cad touched on this.)

Who prevented the accused from voting?  And how?  (And, signally, when?)

(Ooo, we finally again discussing parliamentary procedure!  Somebody wake Mr Homebody up! -- or however you spell his name.)

__________

N.B. I say "Awful" because I don't concede Sainthood.

Contrarily, I do accept Her LoganLady's LoganLadyShip because, perforce, she is, and spectacularly, Her own, and exemplarily (did I mention "spectacularly"?) LoganLadyShip.

 

Edited by Gary c Tesser
paragraph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, SaintCad said:

Gary & Logan continue their courting via PM.

Post-mortem? you gonna kill us?  What the hell kinda aspiring parliamentarian do you take yourself for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(LoganLady, kindly disregard all this internecine squabbling. Me and Cad goes back a ways.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.