Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Gary c Tesser

Members
  • Content Count

    3,136
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Gary c Tesser

  1. I agree with Gary Novosielski. What in your documents -- your written rules -- says that young people do not have the right to vote? Looks like yes. Just yes. And while it may be embarrassing that we have been disenfranchising young people since 1972 by depriving them of the fundamental right of members to vote, if it really turns out that the young people have had the right to vote all along, well, let's fix what things are broken, and let us recognize that this recent election wasn't particularly one of them.
  2. A few thoughts. 1. As I read this, all these proposals originate as original main motions, of equal status, except when the chair recognizes one of the members trying to move them. 2. Although each of these "about four" proposals was apparently envisioned as a stand-alone, hopefully without competition, a full two of them can be moved as proposed substitutes, while the version that actually leapt to his feet nano-fractionally faster than the others, is pending, So I think this: " If they are amendments, then only one of them may be considered at a time while the original main motion is pending" is oversimplified (albeit mercifully).
  3. I think there is a big difference. Without having had the opportunity to think it through (not being George), I strongly suspect that including the tellers's reports of ballot votes protects at least some members's rights, and all that "&c" does not. But most important, I submit that the procedure for correcting the minutes distinctly does not envision corrections that would violate the rules. Nothing that I have seen put forth by Messrs. Brown, Katz, pwilson, sometimes JJ, and maybe I missed somebody, suggests a good reason why the procedure for correcting the minutes (specifically, specifying a majority vote) should supersede the requirement to not ignore any rule -- and so, to suspend any rule that prohibits our doing what we want to do.
  4. O Richard, our first quarrel. I think it should be understood that normal corrections address matters of substance, not procedure (e.g., the meeting actually recessed at 2:43, to meet at the call of the chair, and not, as the secretary's draft has it, at 2:47, for ten minutes. Or, it was Mr Brown who moved to rent beach balls to adorn the orchid exhibition, not Mr Tesser, who subversively favors buying a few dozen M-80's, to be introduced during dull parts of the botanists's presentations, because it's so disruptive and disquieting to set beach balls on fire -- OK, I'll say it, unseemly, uncouth, louche, or both). I'm going to let that part go, so as to think about it some more, or to hope that George does (as it is said, let George do it). Let's try the scenario. A member, let's call him Stuart, proposes correcting the minutes by striking out the tellers's report. The chair, although uneasy because something's nudging at the back of his head and it's not playful mischievious Mr Brown this time, can't put his finger on it, and simply asks for objections. Mr Mervosh, per Post 4 or so, rises to say that not only does he object to the proposed egregious correction, but that he raises the point of order. I submit that the point of order is well-taken, and that the chair should so rule (and I'm even toying with not tolerating an appeal, maybe not due to the merits but because I'm so worked up and I'm so woefully behind on my post-count; although that would waste time, because that choice iteslf would be appealed, since Stuart, or any of his cronies or acolytes or Renfields, would insist that there are other reasonable opinions, since they have them). In short (or "in other words," I'm not sure which is better, someone please advise), a correction to the minutes that violates the rules of order must suspend the rules to be valid. Also: ... And so maybe it would take more than just suspending the rules.
  5. (C'mon, I've been the Overnight Officer for this, The World's Premiere INternet Parliamentary Forum (soi disant, I confess, if only to give Tom something else to look up again) for maybe fifteen years now. So geez, Richard, get some sleap! (Rhymes with "sheap"))
  6. Yes, it's nice to give a Canad some credit once in a while.
  7. ... So you can discuss everything about buying the building, unless the notice is more specific. JJ and I argue so much. I think he's a latent orthodontist. Or maybe a pervert. -- O wait, that's probably me.
  8. And I agree with Richard Brown! Is this getting tedious or what!
  9. As usual, for maybe fifteen years or so (except that then maybe Richard was six or twelve), I agree with RB and GMB III.
  10. bishop, you got Internet access yet? You reading us?
  11. I don't think you do: I think you are thoroughly correct. Good work, Mr Ed. (... until I stand corrected.)
  12. Endearing to hear back from you. Shirley was the name of my best-loved aunt, who died about a year ago.
  13. "The Right Book" (Reg. Penna. Dept. Agr.) is Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised ("RONR"), currently the 11th Edition, which is not available over the Internet (unless you order a copy that way. I myslef prefer patronizing independent bookstores, Jeff Bezos is too damn rich already). Well worth the price (unless, obviously, you can't afford it). I recommend you start with RONR-In Brief *(Reg. Penna, Dept. Agr.), an excellent intro, and you can read it standing there at the independent bookstore's check-out counter (stepping considerately aside so that the other flocking customers can buy their copies). It'll take maybe an hour or two, or all afternoon if you're a college graduate or comparably disabled.
  14. It's embarrassing to be so paint-by-numbers in agreement with Richard Brown that I might come across as a fawning sycophantic lickspittle. Thank Heaven he's a Republican or something, so I can grasp desperately at the plaintive pathetic tatters of my self-respect. (In the early days of this, the World's Premiere Internet Parliamentary Website, there was a regular poster, Ian, who formed a mutual admiration society with me. Two members. I wrote the bylaws. GM III might remember those days. Of course, we were younger then. Josh and Shmuel were what, six? Three?)
  15. C'mon, Kristine, meet us halfway here. In the meantime, I'll offer that, when a substantive action (a "main motion") is being considered, there are a number of secondary motions that can be proposed, and dealt with, before dealing with the main motion. Among these would, indeed be a motion to change the threshold for adoption of the main motion from a pure, simple (dare I say, "chaste"?) majority to a 2/3 vote. (This might be covered in ROnR, Section 30, "Methods of Voting and the Straws," or something; but more likely it's Section 25, "Suspend the Rules.")
  16. Hmm. That doesn't ring a bell: you got a page number for this? Whoa. You're saying that in the past, when the board was deadlocked, the decision was made by the membership? OK, then: since the bylaws do say that the board shall fill vacancies, then maybe the board only, and not the membership, fills the vacncy.
  17. Hmm. That doesn't ring a bell: you got a page number for this? Whoa. You're saying that in the past, when the board was deadlocked, the decision was made by the membership? OK, then: since the bylaws do say that the board shall fill vacancies, then maybe the board only, and not the membership, fills the vacancy.
  18. Looks good to me. Is that all you need right now?
×
×
  • Create New...