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 .

8 hours ago, Godelfan said:

Then please tell me why an amendment of third degree is not permitted.  You hinted that you have an answer to that other than citing pages.  What is your answer?  

If asked to explain that rule, I myself would point out that we can't permit unlimited degrees of amendment because it would let two people effectively refuse to allow a motion to proceed if they oppose it.  As a result, we have to choose some level.  But why 2?  I have no reason for that, specifically.

More to your point - as parliamentarians, yes, we need to explain the reasons for the rules of order, and no, we are not automatons.  But what you're asking here isn't the reason for a rule of order - you're asking for a substantive reason, one having to do with the underlying subject matter, not with rules of order persay.  That is something we are neither obligated to expound upon, nor qualified.  

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