Gary c Tesser

On 1/12/2017 at 7:30 AM, Small DogClub said:

best minds on the world's premier parliamentary forum

Mighod, quoting me, and also spelling it right.  My smelling salts, please.

I should just like to say that it has been an honor and a privilege and a joy to have participated in this forum this decade and a half or so, and my emphatic gratitude to all, for making this happen.

Your pal and fan,

Gary c Tesser

On 1/10/2017 at 3:08 PM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

"plain old garden-variety main motion"

Am I the only one who nostalgically yearns for the halcyon days when we used gustatory metaphors ("plain vanilla") and didn't have to delve into horticulture to try to understand parliamentary questions?

On 1/9/2017 at 2:31 PM, Small DogClub said:

(having read RONR-IB in full while standing at my open front door immediately upon delivery by Amazon)

Mighod.  Someone actually listened to me.

On 1/18/2017 at 2:45 PM, Richard Brown said:

Now I'M the one confused

I wasn't confused, I was perplexed, befuddled and/or flummoxed.

31 minutes ago, jstackpo said:

page [XX - I can't spot it at this hour of the night!]

I don't see it on page XX, that's still the contents.  Can't you college graduates count in English once in a while?

It seems to me that these observers would be ex-officio members of the executive committee, and there's nothing weird about it at all.  (You should note, tangentially, being an academic and all, that the word "weird" is usually misused; better "odd," "strange," "bizarre," "macabre," "unearthly" "meshuggeh," or the like.  Rule of thumb, don't say "weird" unless a zombie is eating your leg.)

By the way. Probably the bylaws define the membership of the executive committee, so this proposal to have an Observer be a member of it would have to be a bylaws amendment.  In which case, Robert's Rules says that Robert's Rules doesn't have a say in it.  Your bylaws are your ne plus ultra, as it were.  You can redefine the law of gravity in your bylaws if you want, so that your members can lazily drift around the room and bump gently off the ceiling now and then, instead of frenetically darting around the room and explosively bouncing off the ceiling, as I am given to understand you college students do these days.

________

N.B.  I said "as it were," because I slightly misused "ne plus ultra."  As the famous and brilliant story says, "You Could Look It Up."

O ho, THAT'S your story NOW, is it?

2 hours ago, Guest Mari said:

Sorry if my online research offended anyone

Nothing to be sorry for, especially as parliamentarians (and aspiring parliamentarians like me) are legendarily, even, dare we say it, iconically, easy-going, equable, well-adjusted (look at Mr Honemann's impeccable suit!), imperturbable, infallibly cheery and uncommonly good-looking (look at Chris Harrison's picture). 

I myself just googled "Robert's Rules of Order," and this website did not appear in the first ten listings (although it's some comfort to see Rod Davidson's website right up there).  So what else can be expected?

But it is in fact fundamentally implicit, even intrinsic?

O, I see.

14 hours ago, Guest Scot P said:

repeated failure to attend Board Meetings will result in resignation, either voluntary or by a decision of the Board.'  Could this apply even though it is addressing the nominating committee? 

(Yeah; apparently it is a fact, established there in the bylaws, though awkwardly placed.)

10 hours ago, Gary c Tesser said:

I don't think this is at all germane; even if it were not talking specifically about the nominating committee, whatever would it be about?

Aha. What it's about is, if he's suspended, and therefore does not attend board meetings, should he be removed from office for not attending those meetings?

However, that's tangential.  Go with what Chris Harrison says (always a good bet). 

C'mon, Kim!

9 hours ago, Kim Goldsworthy said:

No, you cannot remove someone from office after the penalty of a disciplinary nature has been issued (and which did not include "removal from office").

O really?  You got a citation for this assertion?

9 hours ago, Kim Goldsworthy said:

When the hearing committee (!?) issued the penalty, the penalty did not include "removal from office". So, the suspended officer is still in office.

Of course he's still in office:  the original question was whether he can be removed from it. And ...

9 hours ago, Kim Goldsworthy said:

To remove from office this party, you would have to hold a second disciplinary hearing

OK, finally, yes, that's what Guest Scott P was asking; but ...

9 hours ago, Kim Goldsworthy said:

To remove from office this party, you would have to hold a second disciplinary hearing on another different issue (as you cannot re-try someone repeatedly for a single set of offenses).

Who says?  You got a citation for this assertion?

C'mon, Kim!

So ... is there any reason that the the admirable, exemplary, dare we say 'iconic', wording "becomes immaterial" does not appear there on p. 250 -- or, for that matter, in Section 23, at all (besides maintaining Robert's Rules's legendary reputation for its traditionally laconic style)?

3 hours ago, Guest Scot P said:

In the same section it also states ' The Nominating Committee shall give reasonable attention to regional representation in its selection for the ballot and shall require assurance that the candidate will make every reasonable effort to attend meetings. The nominee should be informed that repeated failure to attend Board Meetings will result in resignation, either voluntary or by a decision of the Board.'  Could this apply even though it is addressing the nominating committee? 

I don't think this is at all germane; even if it were not talking specifically about the nominating committee, whatever would it be about?

5 hours ago, Guest Scott p said:

can this officer be removed from the board and replaced permanently

To emphasize what Mr Harrison said, nothing in Robert's Rules prevents you all from doing that.

OK ... I'm gonna keep dragging.

Lotsa luck.

Ouch

On 1/13/2017 at 11:38 AM, Richard Brown said:

Am I alone ...

No, you're not.  This exposition is rather brilliant.

OK, here's FAQ #1. Question 1:
Is it true that the president can vote only to break a tie? . at http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#1 .

Maybe more, if someone else can chime in.  I have to go, I have a 3:30 deadline elsewhere, and so does my horse.

Robert's Rules has no prohibition on it, and often assumes it.  Look to FAQ #1. at +++++++. for details about the chair voting.

wait a minute.

17 hours ago, jcameron said:

individuals wrote in nominees on their ballot for the position

I don't think that being a write-in makes one a nominee, so a write-in vote does not violate any rule about nominees.  Nominations come before the election begins.

17 hours ago, jcameron said:

can he take the position of Vice President.

I don't see why not, do you?

14 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

the chair's stating the question on a motion that has not been seconded is used on page 250 (and there you are all the way up to page 251) [is] a shining example of an instance in which a point of order must be raised promptly at the time the breach occurs.

So is it that the untimeliness -- the PoO's not being raised promptly in most instances, like this one, in which it needs to be -- waives it, so that the breach becomes immaterial?

(George you perv leave my girlfriend out of it, and none of your business what we're doing at 3:30 AM!)

14 hours ago, Gary c Tesser said:

a standing rule or a special rule of order (SOMEBODY HELP!  WHICH IS IT??!?*)

12 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

this notice must be sent out a reasonable time in advance of the meeting. This may be prescribed by special rule of order or by the resolution

Therefore, it will be closer to, if not actually, a standing rule (adopted by a majority vote), than to a special rule (notice & 2/3, or MEM), yes?

Why can it be by a majority vote (p. 18????) or special rule?? Which is it???  Can it be that it's neither particularly animal nor mineral, but a loathsome horrendous Lovecraftian hybrid?

(Can the answer be that if it's done once, then it's by resolution, an administrative matter; but if it's done as an ongoing matter, then it becomes a loathsome horrid Lovecraftian transaction of business (p. 15; Reg. Penna. Dept. Agr., which regulates the propagation of hybrids)?)

On 1/12/2017 at 9:24 PM, Guest W. Watson said:

Is this practice violating any fundamental rights of members?

Since this fundamental right is supposed to be spelled out in the bylaws, and it isn't, you might say that the bylaws are in fundamental violation of what RONR says (line 11 - 12, and maybe -15).  But that won't get us anywhere, for a couple of reasons.  

Square business, then:  you should amend your bylaws to comply with lines 13-15 (not just the law, but because it's a good idea).  If, as is likely, it will be easier, as a stopgap, to adopt a standing rule or a special rule of order (SOMEBODY HELP!  WHICH IS IT??!?*) sooner, then please do that.

16 hours ago, Rev Ed said:

One day's notice could work in a few circumstances.  For example, let's say the members

Yeah, let's say the members all live in Ed's house.  The meeting notice can be placed on their breakfast plates, soaking up grease from the eggs and bacon and home-fries and marijuana (this is in Toronto).

_______

* ... and why, please?