Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Kim Goldsworthy

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Kim Goldsworthy

  • Birthday 08/24/1956

Profile Information

  • Location:
    Rosemead, Calif.
  • Interests
    Chess; Baseball; English language (etymology; grammar); Philosophy

Recent Profile Visitors

2,624 profile views
  1. Why? English grammar/syntax observation: • "Ex-officio" is an adjective. • "Ex officio" is a noun. One hyphen makes the difference. • RONR uses the adjective to describe quickly what otherwise would be done in a sentence. • RONR uses the noun to describe the party involved. *** RONR has a special case for presidents who sit ex-officio. RONR implies that non-presidents do not pick up the same perqs -- as your hypothetical treasurer would have. That is, it is NOT the case that "all parties who sit ex officio do not count toward the quorum". -- R
  2. I may have mis-read the original poster. You are thinking that "ex officio" must refer to a specific NAMED office. -- No! "Ex officio" can refer to any status. E.g., If you have a customized rule which implies "All past presidents shall sit on [body X]", then this is true ex officio, too, because as soon as one loses the status of "being a past president", then one simultaneously loses the second position. E.g., Assume a customized rule, "All spouses of gentlemen members are automatically members of the Ladies Auxilliary." -- This is an ex officio position. -- Why? Because as so
  3. The original poster is confusing two concepts • The term "ex officio" does NOT mean "former officer" or "former office holder". • The term "ex officio" means "by way of holding office" or "through the office" -- and thus one simultaneously holds a second position automatically. E.g., If I sit ex officio on a committee or board, then that MUST imply I am holding another office/position/honor/stewardship at the same time. And, when I lose that stewardship, honor, etc., then I automatically lose my seat on that board/committee. Instantly and automatically.
  4. At the second meeting, which was on day two of the two day convention, a point of order was made immediately -- after calling the meeting to order -- that a quorum was not present. *** Without a quorum, no binding decisions can be made. So, the chair cannot create a binding precedent, nor undo a binding precedent, in a quorumless meeting. So, the day-one decision stands, for now. -- Until your 3rd meeting, when a quorum is present, and the point(s) of order can be turned into a permanent binding decision.
  5. Guest Zev, See RONR, "scope of notice", for amendments, pages 307-308. Note that "40" is NOT beyond the scope of their given notice.
  6. Are you saying _________?: • IF an expenditure DOES exceed the estimate of $3200, • THEN the expenditure needs approval, • EVEN IF the expenditure DOES NOT exceed the estimate of $3200. ??? How is this even logically possible?
  7. > What happens when the current term ends? I would key-in on the descriptor, "automatic". If the circumstances are such that automatic-ness is impossible (due to a missing element), then the filling of the open slot(s) are to be done the old fashioned way. -- Via election. When a fixed term ends, then, parliamentary-speaking, that always implies that an election is to occur. You do the assessment: Q. How many open slots are there, as of the end-of-term? as of the hour of election? I think you will see that the slot of all electable officers are subject to election,
  8. > Your structure is non-standard. Robert's Rules of Order assumes that a traditional structure of P *and* VP. - - Whereas, you have P and PE, in lieu of an intervening VP between the two positions. *** Nonetheless, I find your phrase, "... who shall automatically succeed to President ..." quite persuasive toward the interpretation that your PE is virtually your VP, for parliamentary purposes. -- So he/she gets kicked upstairs. *** Since you will have a vacancy in the position of PE, then, once the automatic succession is acknowledged , then, per your own ru
  9. A good chair does not take action in a vacuum. The chair ought to announce his intentions. • "If there is no objection, the chair will dial 911 (or "dial hotel security") for a police officer to execute the removal of the member from the hall." If there is an objection, then Robert's Rules is clear on what to do next.
  10. For the sake of this thread, shall we call the targeted member "Z" or "D"? Or are there two parties involved?
  11. Late brain storm . . . *** Perhaps the original poster is confusing: (a.) adopting the whole motion again, with modification; vs. (b.) adopting an AMENDMENT, whereby a single word (or more) is all that is "adopted" -- to be either INSERTED or to be STRUCK OUT. *** That would explain his "chain of custody" to fit a common practice. -- Upper echelon people say, "Tweak here, and tweak there, and we shall then rubber-stamp it as satisfactory." -- And the lower echelon people say, "OK. Will do." In such a case, the answer to the original question (of many) is
  12. kg: "We"? Who is "we"? -- President? VP? Associate VP? Policy Committee? Department? kg: "Us"? Who is "us"? kg: If you are going to change one iota, then there must be a vote. -- Else, without a vote, no change has been "approved" by "you"(?!).
  13. Why not use the title of most applicability? If your VP is the chairman/chairwoman/chair of the X Committee, then why not say so?: "The chair of the X committee will now report." It would not make sense to have a VP present a report from the X committee, to the newbie attendee.
  14. I have a hunch. I think you are indirectly asking, "Can we edit old minutes?" The answer is "Yes, you can amend minutes which have long-since been approved." See the motion in Robert's Rules of Order, "Amend Something Previously Adopted".
  15. The rule implies: 1.) approval via Inferior Body #1. AND 2.) ratification via Superior Body #2. *** Since a rule, "all powers of Body #2 are assumed by Body #1", would make nonsense of the appointment rule, then this "all powers" rule ought not be interpreted as implying that the approval rule is never to be triggered fully. (If it were, then the Board would be 100% shut out every time.) If one interpretation allowed both rules to be executed, and a competing interpretation makes a certain rule impossible to obey, then the first interpretation ought to prevai
  • Create New...