BabbsJohnson

15 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

It has happened on occasion. Not very often, though. Sometimes the impression is in the eye of the beholder.

No. Only that either your English class in High School was the first one in the morning or else you were in a hurry to catch Dancing With The Stars.

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. 

5 hours ago, mjhmjh said:

When I try to join, Discord says that the invite may have expired or I may not be allowed to join.

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”?

21 hours ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

It's voice and text chat. And Nosey has misspelled "Parliamentary."

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

7 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

Again, I note that “substantial compliance” is not a parliamentary term, so there is no parliamentary meaning to saying that a particular assembly is (or is not) in “substantial compliance” with RONR.

With that said, with regard to the particular complaints:

• I would be highly concerned with an assembly which did not attend to the rules of decorum. The rules of decorum are critical to maintaining harmony within the assembly. While potentially certain of these rules could be relaxed if the circumstances warrant, an assembly which permitted personal attacks against members, for instance, would be highly concerning.
• I would be highly concerned with an assembly which did not permit Points of Order or Appeals, since these are the only parliamentary mechanisms available for the assembly to enforce any compliance with the parliamentary authority or the other rules of the organization. Without these tools, the assembly is entirely at the whims of the chair.
• I am not entirely sure what is meant by “did not engage any of the disciplinary procedures in RONR.” If you mean that the assembly has chosen not to pursue disciplinary action against a person who, in your opinion, should be subjected to such action, I would note that this is a substantive decision that is at the assembly’s discretion, so this fact would not give any concerns for parliamentary reasons. (If I were a member, I may or may not be concerned with the substantive decision, but that is beyond the scope of this forum.) On the other hand, if you mean that the assembly did take disciplinary action against a member, but did not afford the member the due process protections in RONR or in your organization’s rules, then that would be highly concerning.
• The fact that “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.” is not concerning at all. This is an accurate and appropriate description of how meetings should generally operate. Meetings are intended for the assembly to conduct its business in the most efficient manner possible while also protecting the rights of the minority and the individual members. These objectives can generally be accomplished with the basic tools of parliamentary procedure. More advanced tools are available for those circumstances where they are needed.

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)

52 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

No.

No, unless the chair requests advice, or if the chair submits the Point of Order to the assembly.

“Before rendering his decision, the chair can consult the parliamentarian, if there is one. The chair can also request the advice of experienced members, but no one has the right to express such opinions in the meeting unless requested to do so by the chair.

When the chair is in doubt as to how to rule on an important point, he can submit it to the assembly for decision” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 254)

It should also be noted that, unless the interruption was for the purpose of asking a question, whether the member consents to the interruption is not relevant to the question of whether the interruption was in order (and even in that case, the proper procedure is to ask the question through the chairman, who then asks if the member consents to the interruption).

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? 

1 hour ago, J. J. said:

Parliamentary Practice:  https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.49015002540178;view=1up;seq=9

Thank you so much!

2 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

Can OP Nosey get a copy of Parliamentary Practice and use that as a basis for some teaching sessions? Where would we find one these days?

👍🏻 Thank you

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

I concur with this, including the advice about reading up on Point of Order and Appeal and finding supporters, but I would also note that since the OP anticipates that the chair may simply refuse to acknowledge the Point of Order, some additional reading concerning the procedures for handling abuse of the authority by the chair may also be necessary.

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.

9 minutes ago, George Mervosh said:

But I think Nosey has made clear that they are using the procedures for small boards. 

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

4 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

Yes, but you'll note that none of the five options Mr. Katz has listed has a parliamentary solution. So I have to agree with Mr. Katz that I don't see the benefit of continuing to pile up examples of transgressions of parliamentary procedure.

The solutions appear to be interpersonal/political or legal.

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.

2 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

As soon as we get unanimous agreement that it's perfect.

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)

4 minutes ago, jstackpo said:

Welcome to the club.

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 

On 2/28/2019 at 12:33 PM, Josh Martin said:

 

Yes.

Re: Appeal

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

7 hours ago, Nathan Zook said:

With no disrespect for any members of the bar in this forum, many of us have had to deal with this general problem:  lawyers are the worst when it comes to parliamentary law.

The problem is that parliamentary law is a very distinct body of law from the body of law that lawyers normally spend their time on--and they do not know this.  What is more, they have the confidence in the profession when they expound on their ignorance.

Of course, this is not true of all lawyers, and a lawyer that decided to pursue his PRP would likely have a significant leg up.

====

But there is no such thing as "substantial compliance" in RONR.  A fact that opposing counsel would doubtless exploit should a court case arise.

 

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