Gary c Tesser

From the thread, "Meeting leaders", Richard Brown said, "I guess, though, that a couple of you are so perfect that you have never made such mistakes and that you certainly won't make any in this forum in the future. ? " What is so exasperating is that this says it so perfectly. But pointed 180 degrees off. O Shmuel, our first quarrel. Guest Who's had it exactly right. I think I did a disservice to Weldon, because, strictly speaking, what he said was not unjust, unkind, or inaccurate; and addressed itself strictly to the undeniable incomprehensibility of the Orignal post; I put him on the other side for appearing to agree unconditionally with Kim. Kinda the same with Richard. (Of course Nancy N. can do no wrong. Dan says so.) But Kim's was simply mocking and intended (obviously, unless you think he failed to convey what he intended to convey; I don't) to humiliate, or at least embarrass, the OP. That's the issue, then: I think it is monstrously unfair. You think they're just being lazy (or sloppy). I not only don't think so, I find it inconceivable. I'm rather convinced that a large number of them do not recognize -- and have not been able to recognize, from the third grade on, what difference it makes, or that it makes a difference. Come to think of it, I'll bet a large number of them would be completely oblivious to the point of Kim's post. From another point of view, consider (adapting a principle I think of as Jefferson's, but that goes back to Greece) that it would be better that a hundred lazy boors and sloppy, um, slobs slide without calling them on their discourtesy, than to risk humiliating one person -- remember, there was indeed an almost-blind, arthritically-knucked grandmother assisted by her granddaughter who had Downs syndrome -- who has likely already had more than enough of that.

Godelfan, by "the first," do you mean Rule #2, and by "the second," do you mean Rule #1 (a), as listed above? Like Beethoven's First Piano Concerto, his second, and his Second, his first (because of a mix-up in publishing, when he delivered the manuscripts at the same time)? I see no slack in the wording on Rule #1 (a), do you? If so, where is it? If not, aren't you only asking how rigidly we must comply with absurdly rigid, and probably short-sightedly conceived, but maybe clear and unambiguous, rules? (Just so I get it, and maybe before Dan wakes up, and with luck Shmuel is asleep by now: I left him pondering about small birds and how to measure them by the year a couple hours ago, so maybe it won't let him sleep: are you asking about RONR, or what your rules mean? Frankly I'd be glad to opine, mindful that Dan will likely be up in an hour or so, but what are we dealing with here.)

It's used in discussions about quorums, and also, IIRC (my Right Book is under my Left Elbow) maybe about "reconsider and enter in the minutes," whose title is really misleading, we should change it, I suspect Barney is still open.

O Godelfan, our first quarrel.

Seriously, thanks to all for the help. I wound up just cut-and-pasting the conversations onto Mousepad files, and put them on the hard drive here, and then deleted the originals from my RONR-MB Internal Messaging System Box ("RONRMBIMSB," as Homeland Security calls it, because that's easier to pronounce than "nerd notes," which they called them during the Obama presidency). You'd think with computers, it might, say, be less laborious, but at least now, having whacked away at it since Monday, I'm down to 42%.

Ehh. And why should they feel left out?

It's not complicated at all, I'm just astonished that when I write a message to Richard Brown, I get a copy, and if he replies, he gets a copy, but I get the original; so that when the conversation is done, we each have a transcript. But if his mailbox is full, like it is now (Spa fon? squa tront!, Mr Brown!), and mine is not, Like Now (!!!), then the post office just discards my messages to him, like they do with third-class ("junk") mail IRL, but I get to keep my own anyway? That's brilliant! Looks like I've been unjustly derogating the "upgrades" to the website all this time. Never really liked post-numbers, anyway.

Suppose the previous budged had been adopted "-for the term of 2016, or until its successor is elected-"?

To my mind, Robert's Rules neglects this critical point. The only place it is addressed, as far as I can tell, is at the top of p. 121 (of RONR 11th Ed*), in scandalously small print, with the story having begun on p. 120: a proposal ("motion," in Portuguese) is made that the organization make a donation; the organization elects ("decides," "chooses") to make the donation; and the chair, in announcing that the motion is adopted, says, The Treasurer will cut a check and the Secretary will write a cover letter forwarding it. I just noticed, since we're dealing with who does what, that "forwarding" the check means that the division of responsibility is clearly delineated: the Treasurer cuts the check and hands it over to the Secretary, who takes it from there. (This stands out in my own mind from when the Lunarians had a power-hungry, self-aggrandizing man who, when he was the Treasurer, would, in circumstances like these, dutifully write the check; write his own grandiloquent cover letter (on Society letterhead: as the treasurer, he had arrogated to himself the job of contracting to get our club stationery -- after all, was his rationale, that's part of his responsibility, since he is the one who pays for it; consequently all the produced stationery was delivered to his home, and further consequently, whenever the Secretary needed official club stationery, he had to beg Stuart for it), since of course you can't just put a check naked into an envelope, and who knows when Bill might get around to doing his part of the job. As a result, our correspondent was often confused to receive two items of correspondence: a check promptly, from our Treasurer, with a glowing transplendent letter covering the matter, and, around the same time, a somewhat superfluous letter, by itself, from our secretary.) Somewhere in the middle, I think, is the case a few years ago, when a parliamentary group met at a nearby university, with the space provided for free. At one point, to express our appreciation, our group voted to donate a copy of RONR to the university's library, and when the motion was adopted, we simply moved on to the next item of business. I had the feeling that something was being left out, but couldn't put my finger on it. At a meeting few months later, one of the officers reported that the book had been duly delivered. I was confused, but too confused to ask, how and by whom, and by what procedure? I guessed (and still do, although maybe now I'll find out soon) that the administration of the society was so well-coordinated and congenial that they just got the job done, without blinking, the formalities being superfluous when, as is rare, cooperation was the way they always did things; or, perhaps, this being a parliamentary organization, there was an established standing committee whose job it was to put into effect such decisions as this. I really should find out. If it's on my RP test, I'll never live it down. _________ *I'll hazard Rev Ed is Ed #8 or 9, unless we factor in the Kings of England

How do you fit 5 + 2 + 3 and maybe (hence "conditional," but let's not go back there) another IPP, onto a nine-seat board? (Not that the issue hinges on this.)

I agree: ISTM that he (she?) was asking whether the clauses contradict each other -- that is, does each clause provide complete instructions for amending the bylaws -- or whether they are to supplement each other -- that is, the first clause prescribes how to vote, and the second clause says what must happen before that.

Ken, do you realize that these two topics (quoting you, right below) are entirely different, though related, subjects, and that no attempt to discuss them together will be coherent? So we should stop. I propose that if we want to discuss "interim" board memberships further -- and, ever Pollyannish, I am hopeful that it would be fruitful to try, though painful -- we do it here on this thread; but for anything at all about the secretary's putatively improperly replacing herself, open another thread for it. Please, Ken, would you do that? And posters, please go along with this request.

Richard. Please dismember yourself from this thread starting now.

O, but really square business: Janita, who "invited" these board members to this meeting? It's not a board meeting, but what kind of meeting, and whose meeting, is it? (Of course it's more important that you know the answers to these questions than that I do.)

If it's not a board meeting, then the board cannot make any decisions, as the board. Why not? They can recommend all they want. Are there any rules (of your group -- there aren't any in Robert's Rules) that say that recommendations are decrees? They can recommend that you give me the keys to your silver Porsche, or that I give you the keys to your 2008 Chevette, but does that bind you to lend me your car, or me to lend you mine? Appropriate? If it's OK with your parents and OK with my parents, we can go on a spin in whichever car is available. No?

Dear Ms Yunker. Not that I'm trying to dodge your question (I'm only frantically trying to dodge answering it), but have you already read Section 52 of RONR, which is on this subject? I ask because how I respond will be distinctly different if you have read it and didn't find the answer there, or if you haven't yet had the opportunity to look for yourself and need the answer quick. Not that I (and outrider doppelganger Nancy, that teenage pest) am the only available respondent, but still, it's poor form to fob off a job on someone else when one has begun it. (And I have all these zombie episodes to catch up on before Sunday.)

And to think Pullen thought we could duck out on philosophy.

[Never mind the "George Mervosh said"; of course always mind what Mr Mervosh says, it's just that I fixed the problem with an edit.] mmp, if you fix that typo, please be sure to make a note of the edit, not just fix it. I'm incloined to agree with you, and it looks like Mr Mervosh and Mr Brown, and probably the holy elf, are too, which is always a relief. I think not. Either live with the taint (a particularly unpleasant form of "no harm - no foul"), or just plain give notice that you're electing Don Jr, the current pretender to the treasurership -- yes, for the first and only and only proper, valid time. See middle of p. 104, although the situations are different: p. 104 addresses the idea of reaffirming what's already done; what you're proposing is papering over what has been improperly, invalidly done. See p. 124 - 125 for what I think you have in mind, although, strictly speaking, it might not really work (or it might exemplarily work, I haven't thought it through. O for the days when Argus-eyed Dan Honemann would prowl the pixels, gleefully pouncing on my every peccadillo and solecism). You did read the top of p. 251 (you called it "25," in your traditionally laconic style I suppose), yes? Isn't that what the top of 251 is for? Isn't that what 251, lines 25 - 26, says? (Although, before the delayed, though timely, point of order is raised, the invalid action pretends to be alive, like a zombie. So, in this instance, Don Jr to all appearances seems inarguably to be the pure, real, bona fide treasurer. Until you pants him,)

Kim, some of the rest of what you say in your post may be true, quite likely characteristically admirable (but , for example when did you establish what N1 and N2 are?), but what I quote here I think is plain wrong, unless you trust everything mommies tell you: I concede it would be pleasant if this distinction were established in the language, but it isn't now.

So I got a conversation, hit "options," and started to delete the conversation but a box came up saying: "Are you sure you want to delete this conversation? The conversation will be removed from your inbox and you will not be able to view or rejoin it. Other participants will continue to see it." So wait a minute. Where is it that the converation will now be stored (since not in my Inbox), so that "other participants will continue to see it"? -- And why are other participants allowed it see it but only I can't?

Regarding the thread "Interim board members," by (initially) Guest Ken, begun I think yesterday and so far (and hopefully) ending today: I confess to having dropped the ball on minimizing confusion here on the world's premier Internet parliamentary forum, and I regret it. When, relatively early on, Ken said, "How about this .... ARTICLE ELEVEN -DUES ", I should have realized he was purely going on to some other subject, blithely abandoning the interim board members; so I should have aborted that, since we weren't done, by asking him to start another thread. Instead, I thought one thing somehow had to do with another, and awkwardly (with an attempt at humor) proceeded that way. As a result, there was some (commendably not a lot) confusion, discussing extending the dues having to do with the alleged interim board members. I could kick myself, if I weren't so old and emaciated and pudgy.

So, in addition to what others have said: with regard to this question -- -- there are way too many to write out here. That's partly why Robert's Rules is more than 800 pages long. Data2017, if you have a specific situation that you want to ask about, we here on the world's premier Internet Parliamentary Forum can probably help you. We are the Don Corleones of the internet parlaimentary forum. (Some might dispute that.) Otherwise, you might get your own copy of RONR, read it, and answer your questions yourself; for that matter, you might just come back some day soon to the world's premier parliamentary forum and start answering questions yourself, so maybe guys like Richard and Hieu and Kim can take a couple days off and go fishing in West Virginia or something.

I see. Thanks.

I beg to differ. It's a practical point: look at the first two pages of RONR-IB for a partial discussion; and an analogous condition is discussed in RONR, Eleventh Ed., p. 456, lines 14 - 18. After which, whether you have come around to my view or not, please let me know whether you understand where I'm coming from.

But what can be construed (without, of course, interpreting bylaws) in the rule to let the requirement for notice go? The fact that it provides for filling vacancies, so someone could say that the rule is complete by itself?