Gary c Tesser

And how spectacularly, and stimulatingly, you did, too: you woke George, Godelfan (whoever he is) and Clurichan (whatever he is, I think he's a country southeast of the Ukraine -- aside from his name, you can tell from his quotation in a Slavic language) up all at the same time. (What are you doing up at 4 in the morning? You can type when fishing?)

It's an earlier instance of an officious obstructionist misusing procedure, on a trivial and not even valid point, to gum up the works.

So you agree that you acted without GSC approval, yes? And what you disagree with is the idiotic suggestion that it was improper for you to ask the Selectmen for the resources the GSC would use, to accomplish their assigned task, on your own? A ha. Let me tell you a little story. (You can skip it if you want. Anyone can. OK, then, anyone wants to read it forks up fifty cents for the privilege. You all want to be that way, fine! See if I care!) (I just stepped away from the keyboard, came back to see Fluffy padding away from it. Did he type anything when I was gone? He likes to slip little digs in and I don't always catch them.) For some years I was a member of the Lunarians - The New York Science-Fiction Society, who annually, usually around March, presented LunaCon, the annual regional science-fiction convention, held in a nearby hotel. (In the early years, the convention was held in Manhattan, often in the Commodore Hotel, which, as it aged badly, became known informally as the Commode d'Or; but since the late 1970's the convention got priced out of the city.) The Lunarians elected the chairman for the convention, having adopted some rules and some guidelines in accordance with which the Lunacon Chairman and his appointed committee would run the show, but the club mostly kept our hands off. One of the rules was that the "con chair" could not act as the head of any of the convention's departments (e.g. Programming, Registration, Logistics, Security, Publications, Dealers' ("Huckster") Room, Masquerade), as we had learned too often that an overambitious and overconfident convention chair would take on too much, since many of those jobs, including the chairmanship, could demand the time and dedication of a full-time job, too often resulting in disaster. So this one year, I think in mid- to late-1990, with the convention to be in nearby Connecticut, at one of the monthly Lunarians meetings, a member, let's call him Stuart, brought up a grave matter: the chairman of that coming convention, Dennis, say, had flagrantly and egregiously violated one of the cardinal rules that the Society, for the good of the convention, had imposed on the con and its chairman, namely, that the chair refrain from acting in any way as his convention's Hotel Liaison, and Stuart, reluctantly and painfully was proposing that the club remove Dennis from the chairmanship. 25 years later, I don't remember the details too well. The issue was hotly debated; Dennis, I remember was conciliatory, even maybe apologetic (I remember at one point he allowed as some people might have "trouble with [his] managerial style"); no one (?) wanted to impose on Dennis the humiliation and ignominy of being removed as a con chair (this Wasn't Done, nowhere in the world, for any SF convention, ever). But Stuart's concern was compelling, and it was clear from the debate, and the members's body language, for that matter, that everyone was deeply troubled and conflicted. In the end, I think Dennis promised to toe the line (and maybe ate some crow in the process), and the matter was dropped, probably without formal disciplinary procedures even begun. Oh ... And what was Dennis's infraction, we ask? Well, he wanted to contact a few businesses in the hotel's neighborhood, to find facilities that would provide copy paper, food for the various hospitality facilities, tech equipment, and/or whatnot ... ... so he picked up the telephone, called the hotel, and asked his contact-person there to send him a local phone book. -- Thereby violating the proscription against acting as committee's Hotel Liaison. In retrospect, it's a supreme tribute to Stuart's awesome power of persuasion and ability to manipulate, as well as the limitless capacity for gullibility of supposedly intelligent and well-intentioned people, that such nonsense got as far as it did. What, now, might this ancient kerfuffle have to do with Guest Gary's situation, you may ask.

Dangling participle or modifier. Incivility isn't the registered lowbrow thug, but the sentence says it is.

Guest Gary, are you saying that the GSC already approved your request? If so, how do you figure?

As a registered lowbrow thug, incivility is my bread and butter, so what's the problem? ________ Uh oh, a grammatical error now. And just as I was getting over civility.

Not refusing to serve, since he's not in the job yet?

Speaking for no one but myslef, although probably many** (or some) will agree, please let us know what happened. __________ Maybe the word should just be "some," since the entire complement of the doughty intrepid regulars on this, the world's premiere Internet parliamentary forum, cannot plausibly be assessed as ""many," let alone some partial fraction of us.

By now I have lost track of whether this will be a bylaws-interpretation question or not, but: if Guest Thomas is not replaced, doesn't he continue to serve (indefinitely) (per Mr Honemann's first post here)? So what? You serve until replaced: who will he replace you with when he has nobody? Uh oh. What does this mean??!? OK, I don't think I can come up with an RONR citation, for most anything in this thread, which means, yes, this is a bylaws-interpretation question, and not about RONR. But it has been invigorating; my thanks to all participants.

What's simony ratifying? Is that a typo or erroneous auto-correction for "simply"?

Anyone can, and it takes a majority vote to put into effect, but has been established that adjourning is a poor solution to this problem.

Man I'm sorry I called you a pollywog or misspelled it or both.

That daffy Canad did it first

(What is that blurred, overlapping word comprising the first line?) OK, makes sense. But c'mon. In so many organizations, anyone willing to get the job done might be wearing fifteen hats. If the board members weren't committee chairs -- as well as all the committee members, often -- there would be empty committees. On the other hand, if the politics of the organization are such that this can be a significant concerb (or concern, which is easier to pronounce, though harder to spell), then why concentrate the power to this megalomaniac lunatic martinet president in the first place? (Pace, I know Clurichan didn't commit himself or herself (what ethnicity is Clurichan from? And gender too, since I did bring that up first?) to the principle of concentrating power to megalomaniac lunatic martinet presidents ... but it just sounds like so much fun. (-- Ooo, am I inadvertently talking about current American politics again?)

That's a relief. Some might think that the wording we have is explicit. specific, and unambiguous enough. O keefe (not to be conflated with your descendent O'Keefe), we have narrowly dodged our first quarrel. God thing we're getting along so well on this.

Great Steaming Cobnuts,O Wonderful Edness One, please fix your furshlugginer typo.

That hadn't occurred to me. Maybe, maybe not It depends on what the bylaws actually say, which, from this remove, we cannot sensibly and confidently opine upon. lpc (I leave out your ID number out of deference), what do they say?

I don't see anything in Robert's Rules prohibiting it. (Whyever not? Would it be perceived as, say, some kind of Conflict Of Interest or something? Guest Frank, was there a situation in which somebody squawked?)

(LOL. Old -- to me -- joke, but a fresh wrinkle, and you told it well. ( -- Oh, but kindly note that no one who reads and writes on The World's Premiere Internet Parliamentary Forum qualifies as ordinary. ) OK, kidding and frenzy aside for a moment (as the end of Robert Sheckley's delightful Dimension of Miracles points out, that's what moments are for)... Guest Susan. This is a new wrinkle. It looks to me as if the quoted bylaw provision might be saying that only the board, and not the membership, may amend the bylaws. Was this a meeting of the membership, or of the board?

O Great Steaming Cobnuts. (Pardon my extraneous language, Guest Susan, but I am driven to a frenzy of exorcism.)

Yeah, Richard you polygonal perambulating procrustean polywog with nice legs! (We sure told him off, eh, Pres?)

(This always niggles me)

So was the OP's question answered, and if so, was it by Kim Goldsworthy's final sentence?

Why is the rule about whom selects the recipient not a suspendible rule of order, please? Whomse rights is it protectimg?

(Janmccand, if perhaps you're still reading here, you need not bother looking at that other forum, that's just me intending to argue with the other posters about postings. But if you could please write again and clarify your opening post here, that would really help.)