Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Kim Goldsworthy

Members
  • Content Count

    4,044
  • 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

2,439 profile views
  1. In the panel I see: I see bold. I see italic. I see underscore. Then there is an icon for a LINK, a QUOTE, a CODE, a EMOTICON. Then a vertical bar, then icons for BULLETS; NUMBERED LIST; ALIGN LEFT; ALIGN CENTER; ALIGN RIGHT. There there is a vertical break. I see strikeout. I see superscript. I see subscript. You already know what the last two icons are, per my previous post.
  2. >> There are 3 on this line. *** I do not see a change at all. It is all sans serif (Arial or Helvetica).
  3. On the panel for editing, I see there is an icon to change a font's SIZE and a font's COLOR, and a font's STRIKEOUT and SUPERSCRIPT and SUBSCRIPT. But I do not see the icon to change the font typeface family - from sans serif (e.g., Helvetica or Arial) to serif (e.g., Times Roman or Courier). Q. How do I change the font family?
  4. I agree with JJ. A voter is someone who is authorized to (a.) take a ballot, legitimately; (b.) mark a ballot, legitimately; (b.) deposit a ballot, legitimately. The rules for BALLOTS (their creation, their destruction, their verifiableness) are rules which do not take away one's right to vote. ***** This can be tested in a Gedankenexperiment -- a thought experiment. Q. If a ballot creation rule, a ballot desstruction rule, and ballot color rule, are all established in January, then, can we say, in January, that these rules WILL infringe on the voter's right to vote in the February election? I think not. By pre-establishing the MEDIUM OF EXCHANGE (viz., a source, an end-point, a color), we have affected no one's "right to vote." ***** A voter is NOT free to use any MEDIUM he chooses, to cast his ballot. A vote is obligated to vote in the MEDIUM established by rule. A violation of the rule regarding the medium puts the voter's ballot at risk of not being counted. A voter who violates an election rule puts his own vote at risk. It isn't the organization which is taking away anything from the voter. -- The rule is a special rule of order, and applies to all voters. • Those who obey the ballot rules (all of them), get their votes counted. • Those who disobey the ballot rules (even one of them), is now at risk of throwing their ballot(s) out. -- Via their own error, or their own hubris. No single voter's right is crippled or abridged where the MEDIUM is pre-established by rule. ... any more than if the ballot box where changed by a single voter. -- You don't get to vote just ANYWHERE. ... any more than if the the POLLING PERIOD were changed by a single voter. -- You don't get to vote just ANYTIME.
  5. Okay. Granted. The #1 "book" solution is: the minutes contain the notice. Now, for the slop factor. *** The minutes are lacking. -- The minutes fail to record any ORAL notice. What now? If minutes fail to show any record of an oral notice, then is notice "lost"?
  6. Exellent. -- You have found the conflicting rule I had remembered, but could not find and cite in my original post. Review: Page 374 (under ORDER OF BUSINESS) implies that a motion to alter the hour of adjournment can be moved when the chair announces the arrival of that hour. But, page 234, (under ADJOURN) lines 23-27, says that a motion to alter the hour of adjournment cannot be made when a question is pending, since it would be main motion, by definition. So, when five o'clock arrives, right in the middle of a heated resolution, then which rule (which page) prevails? Page 374? Page 234? What ought to happen?
  7. Assemblies do not alway follow the recommended phraseology or recommended practice of RONR. There is the 'slop' factor to consider. -- Ignorance of The Book. Q. How much leeway is there to the act of 'previous notice'? Worst Case Scenario: Assume an organization which meets monthly. (This scenario also can be applied to an assembly which meets weekly or daily, whenever the meetings are consecutive and at least as often as quarterly.) In the case of oral previous notice (not written previous notice), if the pro tem chair in the February meeting had missed the January meeting, and if the regular chair (who attended the January meeting) is not present in the February meeting, then how would the pro tem chair of February 'know' or 'be convinced' that oral previous notice was given in January, for a given motion? Q. What are the minimum factors which must be present for a pro tem chair to be reasonably certain that previous notice was given orally in the prior meeting?
  8. How is the "group of actions items" being presented to the assembly? If by CONSENT CALENDAR, the solution is one thing. If by COMMITTEE REPORT, then the solution is another thing. If by ORAL UTTERANCE, then the solution is another thing. So, yes, it can be done. And, it can be done in more than one way. Who did he grouping, and how did the mover present all the collected items to the meeting?
  9. A motion to alter the fixed hour of adjournment is classified as a main motion. A main motion can only be moved when no other motion is pending. What if the assembly wishes to alter the fixed hour of adjournment WHILE A MAIN MOTION IS PENDING? What the proper procedure for the following scenario? • An agenda has been adopted. The hour of adjournment is five o'clock. • At 4:59 p.m., the assembly is engaged in the midst of a resolution. • At 5:00 p.m., the chair's timing device rings, and the chair announces that time has expired on this agenda item. • The chair, sensing that the assembly wishes to dispose of the pending agenda item by voting on it, does not immediately adjourn the meeting, but instead awaits an appropriate motion. Q. If the assembly wishes to prevent adjournment at five o'clock for the purposes of completing this last agendized item, say, to allow maybe five more minutes, then what is the most proper parliamentary action? (e.g,. Amend Something Previously Adopted? Suspend the Rules? Extend the Limits of Debate?)
  10. Do you want me start a NEW thread on the question instead of adding posts to this thread? (Viz., "Is it true that fixing the time for a recess/adjournment is a classless order, neither general nor special?") I was hoping that the question was a natural follow up to the original post. -- If not, I will post the above question in a new thread.
  11. No member is obligated to VOTE for either side (affirmative or negative), based on that member's PREVIOUS vote taken on that issue. • People are free to change their minds. • There is no "loyalty rule" in Robert's Rules of Order, which compels me/you to forever to vote in the affirmative (or in the negative) regarding a given proposition, no matter how many board meetings, committee meetings, or general membership meetings, a given member had voted in.
  12. Do you have a citation for dividing orders of the day into more than two classes? See page 352 lines 7 to 10. It defines "order of the day." *** An order of the day, as stated above, is a particular subject, question, or item of business that is set in advance to be taken up during a given session, day, or meeting, or at a given hour, provided that no business having precedence over it interferes. *** See page 364, lines 32-33. It divides "orders of the day" into only two classes. *** Orders of the day are divided into the classes of general orders and special orders. *** See page 364. It defines the difference between general orders and special orders. *** A general order (as explained under Orders of the Day, below) is any question which, usually by postponement, has been made an order of the day without being made a special order. *** See page 365, lines 14-16. It repeats the exclusive two-class division of orders of the day. *** Any matter that is made an order of the day without being made a special order is a general order for the time named. *** See page 352 lines 10-13. It repeats the two classes. *** The methods by which orders of the day can be made, their division into the classes of general orders and special orders, and their treatment in cases where they come into conflict are explained on pages 353ff. *** Based on the above, I see no exception to the rule. I see no way for the creation of an order of the day (viz., setting a time for a recess) somehow jumps outside the two-class division.
  13. So, do you think that the scenario describes a general order? Do you think that the paragraph which describes an EXCEPTION should be moved from under "example" (page 370) and inserted into page 367 ("Rules of Precedence Affecting General Orders for Particular Hours")? That paragraph is NOT an extention of the "example" paragraph.
  14. The reference (p. 370 ll. 26-31) is what I have been looking for! Thank you for this hidden treasure. And I would recommend that RONR 12 incorporate this exception into Section 41. (Namely, that pre-determined recesses which are created by the "general order" procedure in Section 41 are to be treated as special "special orders", and can interrupt special orders.) This is worth writing an article about. (To pre-empt J.J. from doing the same.)
  15. Why do you NOT consider a pre-determined adjournment, or a pre-determined recess, neither a general order nor a special order? Isn't it one or the other, by definition? RONR does not say in Section 41 that recesses/adjournment are exceptions to the special order/general order rule. -- Their creation is identical. So surely they must be one or the other.
×
×
  • Create New...