Gary c Tesser

15 hours ago, Tim Wynn said:

Sure. The chair could recognize the reporting member of the committee to explain each section as they are being considered: something akin to Article One is the Name, and nothing was changed there; Article Two is the Object, and only two changes were made, this and that; Article Three is Members, and every word was changed.

*+)

18 hours ago, Robert Dingus said:

we went back to discussion, at this point the person talking, made the " motion to table until next year" this motion passed 39 to table 24 to deny.

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.

10 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

You will have to find a creative way of dealing with this aspect of this issue. 

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 around I think the '80's (I mean the location not the decade though we're talking lunchtime doctorate talk so who knows, or knew and remembers. )

On 6/26/2018 at 2:23 PM, Tim Wynn said:

 Certainly bylaws cannot be amended in discord with the process for bylaw amendment prescribed in the bylaws (or higher governing document)? 🙂 I would consider the rules of RONR for amending bylaws that are silent on bylaw amendment to be in accord with bylaws that are silent on their amendment.

On 6/26/2018 at 7:53 PM, Steven Britton said:

 

Certainly, if the bylaws prescribe a method for their own amendment, as they should. Myself, as a classically trained musician, I always tried to avoid dis-chord.

On 6/26/2018 at 7:56 PM, Tim Wynn said:

😂 Heard that.

On 6/26/2018 at 8:05 PM, Steven Britton said:

I believe we're in harmony now on this particular answer.

 

11 hours ago, Benjamin Geiger said:

In the absence of provisions in the bylaws for their own amendment, would the normal fnord rules for the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted apply?

Adroitly orchestrated, men.

( ... 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" )

I wonder what's going to happen next.

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?)

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 might be minor (and at least too late to object, by a Point of Order, by now), but some of this might have been nipped in the bud by calling to order those who, by passing out pieces of paper and then distributing ballots, were disrupting the meeting (RONR 11th Ed., Sect. 43 "Rules Covering Debate":  REfrain from Disturbing the Assembly, p. 394).  Just don't let it happen again.

4.  Where's your attachment (your 4th paragraph)?

5.  If The Adversaries are getting a lawyer, then they're getting a lawyer.  You can't stop them, and maybe you heard wrong.  Lawyers cost money:  how much money is it worth to them to dissolve your guild?  be ready, though, to engage your own lawyer, if it comes to that.

6.  "Since to Point of Order ruling went unchallenged isn't everything else moot?"

... Maybe , maybe not.  At a minimum, if they hire a lawyer, that probably is their camel's nose under the tent.  And , sorry, I'm too sleepy to run through the purely parliamentary considerations.  With a little luck, one of the sleeping parliamentarians will get up, to add to (and likely correct some) of what I have said here.

-- GcT

I'm also having trouble with what Tom Coronite is.

On 4/18/2018 at 9:13 AM, Guest w_w said:

The reason we were doing a special meeting was to try and handle this as professionally as we could and not embarrass someone in front of all the members.

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.

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 parliamentary authority.

I will assume that any responses will accept that statement, at least for the sake of this argument, or explicitly say not.

So let's start.  I think this is mistaken:

On 4/18/2018 at 12:45 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

and the president is the only one given the power to call them

-- or at least, incomplete and misleading, because ...

On 4/18/2018 at 12:45 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

Other board members can only "request" that they be called, but something tells me that the president might not honor a request to call a meeting

... which would be absurd, which Robert's Rules (among others) recommends against, in interpreting bylaws.

Rather, what the bylaws do is offer more than one way of getting a meeting convened.  One way is, the president calls for it.  So forget that.  The other way is,

" Special meetings of the Executive Board may be called by the President and/or requested by other board members ."

-- That is, requested of the the inimical president?  Yeah, you got a case.  ... Of whom, then?

Well, how about the ultimate authority of an organization.  So the "other board members" announce to the membership the special meeting that they are scheduling.

...So, how do we then tell conclusively whether the membership grants this request for a special meeting?

They show up for it.

[Edited, 20 April 2018, 6:16 AM EDT, to add:]

(O nuts.  This probably makes no sense.  The regular membership isn't supposed to show up for a board meeting.)

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?

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] :

On 11/20/2017 at 5:06 PM, George Mervosh said:

If it was simply a conflicting motion not presented as one to amend something previously adopted, that's where the problem comes in on p. 343.... [snip].  Now, certain procedural mistakes may occur while processing the motion, such as what's described in OI2006-18, but that's another matter. 

[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 --

On 11/21/2017 at 11:15 AM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

such a motion, if adopted, is null and void unless it "was adopted by the vote required to rescind or amend the previously adopted motion"

-- unambiguously, invariably, and not subject to the vagaries of parliamentary error if it happened that it were not adopted by the required threshold; or if, instead, the rule that any "vote required", if such an error is made (we are usually talking about a vote, like this one, that requires 2/3; and fails to get it; but the chair erroneously declares the motion adopted), will carry  (unless a quick point of order snags it).

(I'm thinking about votes requiring a majority of the entire membership, maybe, when you can't subsequently prove that a MEM was in the room; with similar sentiments in the clause on p. 349, lines 25-26 )

____________

*Yes, grammar prigs, that's a comma fault.  You know what you can do with yer fershtunkener college degrees, and any or all the propaganda they trepanned into your brain in junior high school.**

**Slightly higher in Canada

*** Gaelic-English slang for "Great Steaming Cobnuts"

On 4/2/2018 at 11:29 PM, smb said:

thanks for pointing it out politely.

Whatever else would you expect?

24 minutes ago, Guest MAKE SENSE said:

once all parties are there, then we can have a vote on reducing the number to ensure quorum can be established

Um, not quite.  Note that Mr Martin said, signally:

22 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

a meeting where the bylaws can be amended

-- 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 "scrupulously,"  "diligently," or maybe "assiduously," or even "carefully" like a college graduate.

On 1/10/2018 at 11:09 AM, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

minimum of 2 executive board members and 6 parent members

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?)

So it's all over before I even get a word in.

Feh.

23 minutes ago, SFHA Bubba said:

First of all, there was never a mention of "striking out" and very much realize "minutes are a record of what was actually done, right or wrong." As for "there will be no amending of past minutes", correct me if I am wrong but does not section 35 in RONR, 11th ed give details on how best to "Amend something previously adopted" ?

The reference to "striking out" was probably about the idea of amending the minutes.  Yes, you correctly read Section 35.  But look at p. 308, #b (OK OK, "b" is not a number) :  so, it is impossible to undo the fact that the motion, however erroneously, was made and adopted; and it is unconscionable  (see p. 299, last four words) to propose that the minutes record anything other than what happened.

(But actually I don't think that that is actually what you have been proposing, I think we are all in agreement and there is only a misunderstanding and we are all on the same page (as the contemporary instant-cliche' goes).)

11 hours ago, Guest Confused Anthony now said:

there were only two parents and myself, along with coordinator. Secretary and treasurer decided not to show. This has been the set up for the start, the two others dont show resulting to no meeting. This is the general assembly meeting.

It looks to me (as, I presume, making a PRES out of U and ME, though NEITHER OF US were elected PRES) as if, in the event that you and the coordinator are board members, then all you need is to get enough more parents -- that's four more? -- to care enough about their children to show up for the meetings.  ( ... And what about the current vice-chair?)

38 minutes ago, Guest Steve said:

So next question is, how would this mistake get recorded in the minutes, if at all?

"At all"??!?  Yes, of course. It happened.

Record it exactly how it was done -- however wrongly.

Then, in the minutes of the meeting at which you correct the action (i. e., and also e.g, for others, as soon as possible), you jump up and down about it.  Also nothing prohibits your organization from making a marginal note at the minutes of the meeting when you didn't vote by secret ballot.  I'm leaving something out so that my betters (the people who like the horses I recommend) have something to add besides rephrasing what I said (grump, gripe).

Your pal,

Gary c Tesser

39 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

Guest Louis, just out of curiosity, what edition or version of Robert's Rules are you using?

RB, if you're looking at a specific,  pray tell what is it?

(Whatever could Gary Novosielski have left unsaid?)

"Puzzled", if you haven't already, you (or one of your allies, to whom Mr Brown alludes, that irrepressible, indefatigable college graduate) should posthaste determine whatever your bylaws (or other rules) prescribe about nominations and elections.  RONR gives a few options, but specifically says that the nominating committee's report, regardless of whether it has been previously distributed (which RONR says is a good idea) or not, "should always be presented at a formal meeting", and that "after teh nominating committee has presented its report ... the chair MUST [my emphasis -- GcT*] call for further nominations from the floor" (RONR, 11th Ed, p. 434 & -5).  Mr or Ms Puzzled, it's right there, on those pages in black and white.  And maybe, diplomatically,  instead of raising a point of order when the rules are violated (which, in a sense, essentially accuses the presiding officer of doing it wrong) you pull him aside earlier -- some time before the meeting -- and tell him the easy and fair (and, oh, official) way to get the job done.

__________

*Suddenly I don't see the icons for italics and boldface, so my apologies for the all-caps

23 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Maybe you had better quote exactly what your constitution says about votes being taken by show of hands.  

Boy, I'm glad he (or she:  isn't "ciat" the Celtic word for "gladiola"? I left my Celtic-English / English-Celtic dictionary in the Consultation Room of my winter home in Tierra del Fuego) or she was so accommodating.

(They say one way to defer mental decay accompanying advancing age is mental exercise, and one recommended specific is learning a new language:  I'm trying out Sarcasm.)

(Might we go into the grammar ("if" / "that"?))

15 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

s it correct that if, pursuant to that special rule of order, a matter is postponed for two meetings rather than for one meeting, that the assembly at the next meeting could, by a two thirds vote, take up the postponed matter at that meeting?

Why not?

22 minutes ago, Benjamin Geiger said:

This raises the question, though, of why that word in particular had its pronunciation specified, instead of deferring (as with pretty much every other word used) to a dictionary or local custom. 

Yeah, I myself have been wondering about that for some 20 years or so.  (I was younger then, or at least looked it.)

On 11/7/2017 at 10:36 AM, Guest LLT said:

Yes- this seems all the better . Profanity can be policed out .

 

LLT

I was on tenterhooks.