Gary c Tesser

(LoganLady, kindly disregard all this internecine squabbling. Me and Cad goes back a ways.)

11 hours ago, SaintCad said:

Gary & Logan continue their courting via PM.

Post-mortem? you gonna kill us?  What the hell kinda aspiring parliamentarian do you take yourself for?

On 8/6/2017 at 6:36 PM, Guest LoganLady said:

The ladies who read the accusations did vote but accused were not given an opportunity to did not.  Is it correct to allow accusers who read a written accusation to vote in the motion to proceed?  ... If accusers vote why can't accused vote?

OK, back to the beginning.  (I concede I think Mr Awful Cad touched on this.)

Who prevented the accused from voting?  And how?  (And, signally, when?)

(Ooo, we finally again discussing parliamentary procedure!  Somebody wake Mr Homebody up! -- or however you spell his name.)

__________

N.B. I say "Awful" because I don't concede Sainthood.

Contrarily, I do accept Her LoganLady's LoganLadyShip because, perforce, she is, and spectacularly, Her own, and exemplarily (did I mention "spectacularly"?) LoganLadyShip.

3 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

Based on this section, and assuming the bylaws are silent on the subject of removing officers from office, it....

Thank hevvins, Josh, I been waiting all bloody day for you.

1 hour ago, SaintCad said:

I move that the thread be locked and Gary & Logan continue their courting via PM.

Your jealousy (or envy, I'm not sure which is which) noted, you adorable sock-puppet-face you.

3 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

suggest that the Administrator put a lock on them. 

I certainly hope he does not.

(O Dan, our first quarrel.)

Back to the beginning --

On 8/6/2017 at 6:36 PM, Guest LoganLady said:

The motion to sanction did not pass but

On 8/6/2017 at 6:59 PM, J. J. said:

What do your bylaws list as the term of office. Quote the clause exa

The motion did not pass.  Whatever difference does the term of office make?

18 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

32 minutes ago, Gary c Tesser said:

 

I agree. Referring to a member as "a tiny little yippy-chihuahua type gal" is never to be tolerated. 

I don't think we do agree.  This yippy-dog stuff is just someone's opinion, voiced outside of a meeting, and not even that of the president.  I'm certainly going to tolerate it.  And I think you would too if you took that damn frumpy tie off and let the grandchildren tickle you so you drop that frown.

Your fan,

Gary

On 8/6/2017 at 6:36 PM, Guest LoganLady said:

The motion to sanction did not pass but i

LoganLady, is this the bottom line?  Is this how things stand now, with the organization?

Either way, have you read RONR, 11th Edition, Chapter Twenty, yet?  (Have you hit your head on a wall yet?  I have.  Not your head, mine.  I have no idea what state or country your head is in.  But for that matter, I have no idea what state my own head is in.

(Perhaps I digress. 

(Wups, the INternet says Mr Honemann is going to spank me again.  Let's go look.)

On 8/6/2017 at 6:36 PM, Guest LoganLady said:

The ladies who read the accusations did vote but accused were not given an opportunity to did not.  ... Can the accusers have unlimited opportunities to repeat charges? If accusers vote why can't accused vote?
Thanks

Come on, LoganLady.  However were the accused prevented from voting?  What, the accusers said they can't, and everyone sat still for this?  You all sexagenarians and octogenarians, and you sit still for this crap (I acknowledge that it can be painful to stand up) from these teenagers (40-y-o &c)?

Going back a bit (I think last Sunday,,,) ...

On 8/6/2017 at 7:47 PM, LoganLady said:

 The one DD is a tiny little yippy-chihuahua type gal that won't let anyone speak so I'm not surprised that neither the Treasurer or Pres could speak.  't

The presiding officer needs to know to nip this crap in the bud.

On 8/7/2017 at 1:59 AM, SaintCad said:

I'm also confused, were the accused not allowed to vote?  Under whose authority?  EVERY member has a right to vote.

Yes, of course.  But you buried this fundamental point inside a lot of gunk, like the minutiae of Calling The Question, so I figured to tell this lovely Marine Corps lady to just start over.  And, consequently, as I said, no disrespect.  You wouldn't be the first gibbering idiot to post on the Robert's Rules Website Forum (I got here way before you did).

On 8/7/2017 at 1:59 AM, SaintCad said:

Second, I suggest you read up on RONR for making Points of Order, the rules of debate and calling members to order (p 645-646).  Also nothing is as powerful as bringing a copy of RONR with you because I will guaranty they will claim that they have the power to do what they want.  They should be challenged by the Chair to point out in the book where they get this power.  It need not be confrontational, merely "What page in the book are you referring to."

No, no, no.  Absolutely not. This would be fundamentally abandoning, by the chairwoman, her authority, and her duty, to conduct the meeting properly and efficiently.

She does not need to ask them anything -- in the book or anywhere else.

She conducts the meeting:  efficiently, smoothly, fairly, honestly, democratically, &c. -- but, as the representative of the assembly, she is The Law.

If they have a problem with what she says, they can raise a Point Of Order.  Otherwise, shut up and sit still.

O, and incidentally, there are parliamentary questions, if I can remember any of them.

20 minutes ago, Gary c Tesser said:

On 8/7/2017 at 7:10 PM, LoganLady said:

I still say my method would have saved a lot of problems. 

She wants to kill someone, and maybe they deserve it (and I think I agree), but I council her to refrain.

2 minutes ago, SaintCad said:

Can I point out that I am completely lost in this lovefest between Logan and Gary?

Can someone translate what happened?

We are not married yet.

She is very coy.

On 8/6/2017 at 7:03 PM, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

Members do not have the right to read from papers without permission of the assembly, nor do they have the right to unilaterally prefer charges without such a provision in the bylaws. Furthermore, a motion is not before the assembly until the chair puts it there, and members certainly do not have the right to conduct a vote except in very limited circumstances of malfeasance by the chair

This is lighting a cigarette in a gale.

On 8/6/2017 at 7:03 PM, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

That being said, if your president could summon no more than shocked silence in the face of this onslaught, perhaps it is time for a new presi

What, a civilized decent person being stunned by monstrous nastiness?  She being competently prepared to preside over a meeting with normal meeting business, but not for crazy disruptive antics?

On 8/6/2017 at 7:47 PM, LoganLady said:

I'm ticked off enough to take care of the DD and enjoy a nice retirement in a comfy 5' x 9' steel apartment with cable television, a bunk bed, and a stack of little debbie snack cakes.

I so sympathize, but please don't.

If you were a redhead, I would marry you and have your baby on the spot.  So get a grip.  At least one of us ought to.

On 8/7/2017 at 7:10 PM, LoganLady said:

I still say my method would have saved a lot of problems. 

O LoganLady, I would love to visit you.  But not in Sing Sing.

(O, and I addressed "your fan" to LoganLady, not to you grumpy guys.)
Your fan,

Gary c Tesser

12 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

All that was requested was that portion of the Constitution or Bylaws which specifies the term of office. For example, here is what the sample bylaws in RONR provide in this connection:

"Section 3. Ballot Election, Term of Office, Removal from Office. The officers shall be elected by ballot to serve for one year or until their successors are elected, and their term of office shall begin at the close of the annual meeting at which they are elected. Officers may be removed from office at the pleasure of the membership as provided in the parliamentary authority." 

LoganLady, please, let me also emphatically request this.  Look: we, here on The World's Pre-Eminent Parliamentary Internet Forum (Reg. Penna. Dept. Agr.), mostly want to help.  Mr Honemann gets grumpy when pollyannas like me treat the place like what the Brits call an agony column, but you know what, if they don't want to read it, they can go on to the next post, like, Can The President Vote?, and yadda yadda.

1 hour ago, LoganLady said:

National Secretary, National Inspector, National Counselor, National Field Officer, National Press Correspondent and National Senior Aid who are appointed by the National President)

Great Steaming Cobnuts.  Why don't you have a National Senior Executive Nostril while you're at it?

1 hour ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

I'm just waiting until someone tells me what to delete, 'cause I have no intention of reading this stuff. :-)

You do know that I really, really, really object to the censoring.  But you also should know that I read it all so that you don't have to.

5 minutes ago, LoganLady said:

It certainly appears to be a heinous error of judgment on my part asking here for an answer,

No, it wasn't at all.  LoganLady, please stay.  I had to go out (to visit with a ten-year-old Canadian girl and a 70-year-old American woman).  And I been sick.  But I'm still typing.

Your fan,

Gary c Tesser

I'm still drowning here.  I'm not sure if a policy manual, rather than the bylaws, can dictate how elections are conducted. 

So I'm probably not done.

(But I have been fighting asthma for a couple of weeks, so I'm not sure how much oxygen my brain is getting.)

Is this a follow-up question to a previously-posted topic?  If so, please say what that topic is.  Otherwise, we have little clew as to what you're talking about.

Aside from which:

Campground wages sing this song, doo dah, doo dah,

Campground wages sing this song, O the doo dah day...

(Jumping ahead.  I haven't read any of this thread for a while. And maybe I won't, not for a while yet.  I'm recovering from 11 hours of Breaking Bad marathon yesterday. 

(But myghod. 

(I so love this website.)

9 hours ago, LoganLady said:

I was not an invited guest in the first proceedings held exclusively with a grand poo bah group of some name or other that apparently are of exalted station.

Baby steps:  what kind of meeting was this, please?

2 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Okay, so then I suppose you can respond to J.J., and transcribe for him the term of office for the President and Treasurer, as promised.

C' mon, LoganLady, work with us here.