D.Llama

i will.

Greetings S.G. Will respond later this week - but , of course , do not agree with the above review . D.L.

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

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.

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 .

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

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 .

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 .

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 .

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 .

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 .

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 .

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