Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

D.Llama

Members
  • Posts

    97
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

899 profile views

D.Llama's Achievements

  1. O nuts, I typo'd.  My e-mail is pluckyredace@yahoo.com.  "Yahoo" has two "o's."  Sheesh.

    -- GcT

  2. Hi.  I'd like to talk to you some.  My ability to access the internal messaging system here on the Robert's Rules website is intermittent, so if you would be willing, e-mail me:  that's at pluckyredace@yaho.com

    Yrs &c,

    Gary c Tesser

  3. Greetings S.G. Will respond later this week - but , of course , do not agree with the above review . D.L.
  4. Mr Gerber : My sense of this follows somewhat that of Mr Potzbie . Your reference to "puzzlement " tends to suggest that you see the role of parliamentarian as very narrow, indeed. The organization has adopted RONR - they apply it - that is that, and the results are what RONR says they are -as what else can they be ! A member asks "is that rule on auditor report adoption sound ?" - the parliamentarian is to reply " sound , what difference does sound make - this is not about sound -its about what you adopted and what you therefore get - I'm not here to advise on the soundness of any rule- just what the rule is and the result of that rule- and this is the result as per RONR - reduction of responsibility for the treasurer ( even if that turns out to not be the case as determined by a superior authority ) ". My sense/approach is somewhat different in aid of the best possible parliamentarian services. Therefore when I'm asked ( for example ) as to the notion of ten minutes for debate - I tend to say "not sound " for most assemblies - its too long, and therefore I suggest a special rule that eclipses and reduces that temporal allowance . But when it comes to the auditor report responsibility ( read in context -liability ) I'm at sea - my experience is insufficient to provide an answer as to whether or not I see that as sound and whether it should be eclipsed by a special or not . So for me there is a practical context in all of this . Its not simply an exercise in the automatic application of RONR . Obliged for your interest . D.Llama
  5. Thank you very much - Mr Lemoine ; This seems to confirm the perspective of Mr Gerber ( provided earlier on ) - and/but this expert information that you now provide -arising from inside and actual practice in the financial field - is better informed and therefore the more highly persuasive . I understand from this ,and do correct the below , should you consider error : 1) That you consider RONR ,as to adoption of the auditor's report ,reasonably sound practice for non- profits or other like deliberative assemblies ; 2) That for limited liability shareholder based corporations -the auditor report adoption procedure (RONR), is not applicable , productive or needed . One additional wrinkle ( and it may not actually be a wrinkle ) would your view be the same, or different ,for a limited liability member/owner Co-Operative established under a Cooperative Act . Would that be in category 1( above ), or 2 (above ) ? Again - Very Much Obliged Mr Lemoine - for this assistance . D.L.
  6. Hi Godelfan: The distinction you make is not clear to me ( for third level amendment ) and I am curious to ask - what would a "substantive explanation" for this rule focus on ? General Robert apparently crafted many a rule (himself) after his first edition . The above ,from the General, may reflect the initial reason for no third level amendment "as an explanation as a rule of order ". When you refer to "substantive explanation " what place or terrain are you suggesting is not for the parliamentarian to expound upon or be qualified in - ( "underlying subject matter ") as it relates to third level amendment ? Obliged . PS: I agree, however ,that the parliamentarian need not know at all as to the legitimacy or the workings of various things that can arise in a meeting . There may be scientific reports, or balance sheet and income statement data, or other technical data that is beyond the knowledge of a parlimanatatrain and he/she is ( may be ) neither obligated nor qualified to "expound"- upon as you say . But that is not what is at issue in the above example ( amendment ) at all .
  7. Hi Godelfan ; i checked in "Parliamamnatary Law " ( H. R. Robert (1923) ) on why no third level amendment - and your reason ( above ) seems basically what was behind the approach taken . P. 19 "An amendment of the third degree is not allowed. It is necessary to stop somewhere , and this point has been found to be the best ." D. Llama
  8. Thank-you. This simply confirms that we mere parliamentarians do not know what we are talking about- to rely on RONR for the proposition that the auditors report should be processed by adoption . And if you ask your accountant friend by all means do respond further . The accountant expert I dealt with yesterday was unequivocal - no obligation whatsoever . And this is no mere bookkeeper - CPA for the community Club or Church Association . This is a top end senior accountant with enormous financial challenges and experience ( multi- organization corporate/boards ) - a financial accounting expert . We tread on very thin ice over this patch - as mere parliamentarians - it seems ! OBLIGED .
  9. Sir : Much obliged for this but ,with respect - it does not answer the inquiry ,save for the fringes- at best . Say there is no question an auditor is the norm for this organization "X" -and may I add, this is a real situation and a corporation with sales well over a billion $ per year . My question is related to the antecedents of this proposition in RONR ( p. 479 - lines 30-35 - where did it come from- (?) what actual value does it have today ?. When it was initially inserted in RONR was it based on sound legal and accounting principles . ? Is it an accurate proposition for todays accounting/tax/litigation context ? There must be litigation and accounting experts on this forum who may well be able to address this . And this is not to offer offence to your response Mr Potzbie - but are you expert enough in accounting and tax law principles to know if this remains a legitimate proposition for RONR ? If this is an accurate proposition - presently in RONR - then it should be capable of justification by anyone who offers it - and from a source and background ( expertise ) that can backstop it with credible analysis and response . Otherwise it sits in RONR ,without apparent justification or support, in this second decade of the 2000's and we parliamnatatrians are vulnerable to questions and inquiry as to its legitimacy- if we assert it . In a boardroom yesterday I asserted that it was a safeguard of sorts respecting liability for the CFO ( Treasurer) and other internal players and that it placed greater responsibity on the external auditor if the owner/members were to adopt the auditors report - rather than the report simply come is as other reports do ( not adopted by vote - but merely submitted ,and "in", on submission ) . Basically I parroted what RONR suggests . However, the CFO ( a 30 year- very seasoned professional accountant ) questioned this and I was left merely repeating RONR ,without the actual accounting or liability knowledge to back it up .Where and what is that deeper background knowledge ? Without that ( and as justifiable ) this appears a dicey/tenuous area for parliamentarians to tread about (?) and muddle in . An informed answer is very much needed for this- in my experience ( as of yesterday ), and in my respectful submission.The CFO ( noted above ) is now seeking an expert legal response and it will certainly be interesting to see where this will lead .But I now feel quite vulnerable on this- going forward . That was not the case in past circumstances where no challenge was made to my assertion that the auditor report ought to be subject to member/owner adoption. Thank-you .
  10. RONR refers to the need for the adoption of the auditors report . Where did this come from in a historical context and is it in any way - current ? . This appears to concern issues of potential liability and shielding from liability . Is this not a matter that only experts in law and accounting are experienced enough to make or determine (?)- that is -that the auditors report needs to be adopted by vote of the assembly . Today I spoke to a CFO of a major corporation and he indicated that such a motion before corporate owners ,at the Annual General Meeting - is an unknown . Does anyone have a fix on this ? Thank-you .
  11. It seems that these detailed lists ( above ) are interesting, but have very little relationship to what are ,or are not considered " fundamental principles" re RONR. These lists of 9 or more items seem more closely associated with what one finds in the Standard Code . And even in that connection - they are not quite the same .
  12. kudos to Mrs . Comfort for raising this important topic and the response of Mr. Honemann . Perhaps the next edition of RONR will allow for such a change .
  13. In réponse to Mr Gerber- of the esteemed editorial team : The reply provided does not seem to answer at all the question(s) posed re 2) and 3) above . And what do the answers mean ? The response provided for Mr. Gerber , for 2) , that there are both "basic principles" and "fundamental principles" seems to be that they are different things/designations (?) - but that the Index to RONR does not seek to accommodate both "fundamental principles " , and " basic principles " as separate , for indexing purposes . Instead both are placed under the one heading of- "fundamental principles ". If that is so it seems confusing . If the two are distinct ( and that seems the response from Mr Gerber - those "seeking" one or the other ) then why not have the index reflect that ,and have two different index headings - "fundamental principles" and " basic principles " - otherwise surely this confuses the reader . But to have both in the index ,of course , would oblige a bit of additional growth in RONR ! But perhaps very helpful growth ! And the response that there is no need to be "over- concerned " as to what a " basic principle " is - seems to possibly miss the point - entirely . If a point of order is raised and a "fundamental principle" is in play then a continuing breach is said to arise and there are consequences applicable ( possible - point of order well taken) RONR p. 263 . But if its but a mere "basic principle" that would not apply - apparently on the plain and literal reading . So these words and terms used in RONR are apparently quite important . If "basic principles" are the same as " fundamental principles " may we be advised as much- specifically by Mr. Gerber . if not then perhaps RONR should alter the index so as to make the differentiation clear . Over to you Mr. Gerber and thank you for any additional response you might provide .
  14. In respone to jstackpo: 1) - same question - why, if 2/3 is a fundamental principle - is it called a basic principle at p.216 , lines 6-8 RONR . "Fundamental principles" appear to be specifically identified on p. 263- lines 15 to 28 . And it seems to make a significant difference as to classification if a principle - is basic or fundamental - RONR line 18-19 . Perhaps jstacko could advise why the response to 1) is 'Yes ". And some clarification re the index, and the answer to question 3 (above ) ,would likewise be helpful Thank-you
×
×
  • Create New...