BabbsJohnson

Haha. Usually it’s just my bad thumb-only typing, my tiny phone screen, my lack of reading glasses, and a lack of me double-checking my results.

Not sure why it did that, I set this to never expire: https://discord.gg/6Bztapz

Oooo That is very useful. Thank you!!

I had a thought yesterday, that if bylaws in an organization name RONR specifically, with no other option of what shall govern their corporate proceedings, should RONR be thought of as a second-tier (but still totally official) governing document, in which its “jurisdiction” is the “corporate proceedings”?

Oops. Sorry! In a hurry I guess. It was fixed yesterday. It was briefly mentioned that fallacies may also be a topic to discuss, since RONR depends on the disallowance of “personal remarks” which includes many, if not all forms of the ad hominem (attack) fallacy. In looking at the response from Guest Who’s Coming to Dinner, I can’t help but see shades of a possible ad hominem...but I could be wrong. Clarification needed: Should something be assumed about Nosey (me) because of the misspelled word mentioned above? 😉 (kidding...sorta)

I couldn’t find any, so I created one. Here’s the invite, it’s set to not expire, so it should be good for anyone who’s interested... https://discord.gg/UHQRVP

Are any of you familiar with Discord? Does anyone know if there are any discord servers for parliamentary process stuff?

Re: did not engage with discipline What I meant is: a situation arose that called for discipline, and no one knew any procedures for it, and instead of consulting RONR it’s at the subjective whim of the board and the individuals there at the time. The impression I got was they were more concerned with not ruffling the feathers of certain individuals, rather than following procedure (like moving to censure, for instance, if it was found there was some inappropriate action)

Thank you very much.

Have you ever seen a situation where, a Point of Order was called, because of interruption, let’s say, and the person who’s was interrupted said they don’t mind that they were inturrupted? is anyone but the chair allowed to respond to the point raised?

Thank you so much!

👍🏻 Thank you

I am not neccessarily looking for a "gotcha" moment, just to be clear. I am wanting for the chair to gain practice to hearing it, responding, ruling on it, and so on. I'd even propose sessions where we "practice" doing such things, even if it seemed or felt silly. I'm sure there are some people who resist using RONR because they may feel silly using official terms and saying bits that sounds like script. But saying it a few times, or practicing with other might make it feel less so.

With the exception of requiring a second, which we have done for several years now.

I’m holding out for option 1, since we are getting new members, and one person is keen on the idea that the assembly has the ultimate power, I think if he sees examples where the chair can’t admit to being wrong, or won’t budge on something that’s maybe unreasonable...

Yes, well... I’m kind of gathering information, I guess. Each meeting is another opportunity to nudge it into play.

But is anything ever perfect 🤔 and for how long is it perfect?

Understood. What if they wished to not attend to the rules of decorum, did not allow points of order (nor appeals), and did not engage any of the discipline procedures in RONR. And most of what they did do was basic motion making, and voting, and a very occasional amendment or withdrawal of a motion, and that was mostly it. Do you think that could be argued to be substantially compliant with following Roberts Rules and it governing?

Would it be too sneaky to set up with a fellow board member, a moment in which a point of order could be called, to allow the chair to respond? (see if they respond, and how?) What of the possibility that the chair just basically says in however many words, that we don’t do that here (or just refuses to respond, shrugs and shakes her head)

Why, thanks! When should I expect my new member packet? 😸

I had an idea that I thought might be humorous and not too obnoxious, to make a small sign, maybe 8” x 10” with a picture of Jermaine Jackson on it that said “Keep it Germane” I thought about putting it up at the board meeting to remind people to stay on topic. I even made up a graphic, but I’m hoping that it’s humorous and not in any way weird or offensive. Personally, I don’t think that Jermaine Jackson would mind promoting the idea of staying on topic, and I always like a good word play . I thought this pic was cool (because keeping it Germane is hip)

If someone asked during a meeting, after you had made a request, if their compliance was going to ‘make you happy’ is that kind of comment considered out of order? I think he meant it in a “are you going to drop it or shut up about this” sense..

Yes, that is what I meant its ok, so am I, once I know what terms are precise

Re: Appeal Does this mean all members of the assembly get to vote on the appeal?

This is good to know. I found nothing when initially looking around for any mention connecting RONR with the term.