Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Gary c Tesser

Members
  • Content Count

    3,136
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Gary c Tesser

  • Rank
    aspiring parliamentarian ($4.50 / hr, but I can deal)

Profile Information

  • Location:
    Brooklyn NY USA
  • Interests
    I'm interested in finding out how to set "status". I'm also interested in advising everybody not to post their birthdate, because it just makes it easier for criminals .

Recent Profile Visitors

2,311 profile views
  1. Richard, note that this unpalatible superordinate motion cannot be digested by undigesting it, as you suggest. It was "passed" already. If anything kosher happened to it, it simply died of starvation, over the year. I personally think we should, condignly, consider it under the table, where it belonged to start with, like human beings for pity's sake, and lunch time coming up. George, ever try O'Heany's, it was in Albany when my kid brother got his B. Sc. there; Scottish-Irish so it might still be there. And I have a wistful fondness for that place on I think Amsterdam Avenue aroun
  2. Adroitly orchestrated, men.
  3. ( ... or, it may depend on to whom the point of order is made, and, if not between meetings, between which alleys (viz. 2 FP rules subsection p. 16n; p. 484-Supra=, "Bodies Superordinate to a Board" )
  4. Dave, are these questions perhaps prompted by a real-life situation that you are familiar with; and do I detect a leaning on your part towards one side or the other? I ask because it looks as if the inevitable reply to all four (including the implicit question that precedes your "a" question) is, No, of course not, and anything else is absurd. So who can be saying anything in favour of these proposals, and what might be their rationale? (Are they an agent provocateur perhaps?) Or maybe I misunderstand. (Oh, and what makes this an Advanced Discussion question?)
  5. A few 4 AM thoughts for Guest Katydid. 1. You're looking at an antient version of RONR (maybe just old ROR). RONR, the editions since 1970, have chapters, and subordinate sections. I can't tell from here what information, assuming it's not outdated or even obsolete, you want to be citing. Do you at least have access to RONR, the current edition? 2. Your references to the Missouri statutes, and to incorporation, more than suggest that you need to consult a lawyer before a parliamentarian (or even an aspiring parliamentarian like me) (and maybe not the parliamenarian). 3. It
  6. I'm also having trouble with what Tom Coronite is. Removal of the president is an action by the board, not the membership. So it should be done not at a membership meeting, regular or special, but at a board meeting (a regular board meeting or a special board meeting, take your pick) -- so, generally, would not occur in front of all the members in the first place.
  7. In the spirit of comity, I would like to disagree as little as possible with the other esteemed posters, so I should have stopped typing 25 words ago (as of "typing"); yet my drive for the correction of injustices, though more often OCD, prevails. I'll start with disagreeing with Gary P. Novosielski (I find that so easy to type, at least until I get past the first four letters): let me propose a principle, or maybe just an axiom, though I can settle on a rotted plank: The most inept, sloppy, vague, inherently contradictory, incomprehensible bylaws take precedence over the parliament
  8. The minutes record what happened, proper or improper. That's what Robert's Rules says, and well said. Some anarchists suggest that marginal notes to explain the errors and the follow-ups can be helpful and won't bring the apocalypse any sooner. Just to nail this down, Ms Martell, you question is only about what the minutes say, yes? You are considering the motion to recall as an irretrievable mess, yes? You don't want any follow-up anyone is looking for, is there?
  9. After not quite six months, would someone (anyone would do, but I think Paul McClintock would be ideal) please tell me at least whether Paul's question was answered; and it would be gravy to know what that answer was. George Mervosh says [I'm about to try to slickly cut-and-paste,* let's see what works] : [O lawsy me***, it worked.] But George, it is not another matter at all: if I understand correctly, it is precisely what Paul is asking about. The question is whether -- -- unambiguously, invariably, and not subject to the vagaries of parliamentary error if it happ
  10. Um, not quite. Note that Mr Martin said, signally: -- that is, not just the first meeting at which you have a quorum. To amend the bylaws (such as, say, to to make the quorum more achievable), you have to follow punctiliously * the procedure specified in the bylaws themselves. I point this out because typically (and sensibly), amending the bylaws requires previous notice of the intention, so the meeting notice has to mention it. ___________ * I acquired that word maybe in junior high school, and remembered to use it maybe four times since. More often I'll say "scrupulousl
  11. Hmmm. Richard, and Guest Who's, and anyone else: it occurs to me that if two board members are also parents, wouldn't they qualify for both roles (at least, arguably, establishing that a question has arisen of interpreting the bylaws?)
  12. So it's all over before I even get a word in. Feh.
×
×
  • Create New...