Gary c Tesser

Dear LoganLady.

I recognize that you, as green, should stick to basics. 

So I'll say, I think JJ's request is overly specific, and "Guest Who's" is kinda uselessly concerned with minutiae that you should not concern yourself with. 

And I regret the appearance of disrespect, but I advise disregarding everything SaintCad said.

Of course you should read RONR, but it's silly to expect that you really can, within six months or so, if you have any other life (which I certainly hope is so.  I would be dismayed to learn that you don't).  I will say that you should get a copy of it, posthaste, and read Chapter Twenty, Disciplinary Procedures, because it is what both your accusers, and their accused, are concerned with. So you really need to know what it says.  And of course you must look at what your bylaws say about disciplinary procedures.

Before that, though, pick up a copy of RONR-In Brief.  And read it at once.  If you go to a bookstore, read it before you leave the store (step away from the cashier so that all the other eager customers have room to stand there and buy their own copies) -- it won't take an hour, this first reading, unless you're a college graduate, in which case they'll lock you in overnight because you're spending more time looking for grammatical errors than trying to get something worthwhile done.

If you order it online or something, read it before you come back from accepting the package at the door. 

-- WHILE you stand there at the door. 

DO NOT come inside and put it down, resolving to read it soon.  That's the kiss-of-death for getting things done.

(I confess that I'm getting more generally into ruminating about how not to not get things done.)

That will help you and your president keep these buccaneers from commandeering your meetings.  It happens that RONR-In Brief does not at all address disciplinary procedures at all, but that's secondary to the question of who runs the meeting:  it is the assembly itself.  DEMOCRACY IS SUPREME.  The assembly is represented by its presiding officer, or chairman (or woman, or block of wood to sit on, which is certainly functional as a chair, but I concede it cannot conduct a meeting ... I'm meandering, I suspect ...), and its meeting is conducted -- presided by -- the presiding officer.

NOT THE PIRATES.

I will add that it's a relief that you dodged a bullet when the motion to remove those officers failed, because if it had prevailed, you would have to wrangle with the procedural question as to whether it had been done legitimately -- i.e., whether those two people were still in office or not.

But for pity's sake, LoganLady, look:  would you play poker without knowing what the rules are?

Would you play baseball or soccer, or even watch it, without knowing what the rules are?

Is the efficient and fair way that your meetings happen any less important?

Nominate someone.  Maybe a non-member (especially maybe an accountant, who, then might want to be paid for his work, unlike maybe a member, who would typically volunteer his or her time), unless your rules (that would typically be your bylaws) require that the treasurer be a member.  Or maybe, in that case, make your nominee a member first.

Or the bills don't get paid and the building goes dark.  Your call.

8 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

Please enter your new question as a New Topic.

 

GPN, why do you think that Ginny Baxter's post is anything like a New Topic, rather than a post (bewildering, to me, like most of the discussion in this thread) that applies to the discussion in this thread?

Ow!  Where do you get that these are the proceedings, before this document is approved?

OK, then,  look, I guess you're looking at the secretary's unofficial, unapproved, draft.  (But PLEASE don't call this document "The Proceedings."  It's just not.)

(... But, look: this document is the secretary's draft --  which has no official standing until it is ("they are") approved.  But OK, yeah, they are the default.  If anyone proposes another draft of the minutes, it would be as an amendment of the secretary's draft.  )

("Guest minutes", are you the original poster, Guest STEVEN V. AGRAVIADOR  ?  Or is this a related question, but not specifically about Mr Avraviodor's organization, though there might be similarities?)

The post of Posted Thursday at 02:24 PM makes it clear that it is ambiguous as to what the team is authorized to do. -- That is, unless the bylaws do say something about it, which the original post suggests:

On 6/7/2017 at 4:38 PM, Duey said:

what is written into the by-laws

... So, Guest Duey, what do you see in the bylaws (explictly, verbatim, please, with my heart in my mouth) that says that the team cannot buy properties?

By the same token, how was the team, put in place to acquire properties, put in place?

On 6/10/2017 at 0:31 PM, Duey said:

Thanks guys!

Oh for pity's sake , stop: you can thank everyone, but it's not nearly done.

7 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

You must not have been paying attention. 

I always pay attention.  But lamentably I so rarely remember. 

And who could anticipate that you would be awake before your bedtime again?

On 6/2/2017 at 7:56 PM, Alexis Hunt said:

The other citations you provided are not applicable. The motion to amend something previously adopted is to "change an action previously taken or ordered." (p. 305, l. 7), but suspending the rule does not change the rule, it only ignores it temporarily.

I agree with this opinion, but, before asserting it, I would prefer to ask Guest Shawn Terris how he thinks they are, indeed, applicable.

(O yes indeed I notice that the discussion is a week stale.  Alas.)

8 hours ago, Silvertomster said:

ould any such rule be invalid on the principle that making nominations is a fundamental right of membership?

Yes, because of the likelihood that it protects absentees, who would not have otherwise skipped their child's or parents' wedding to attend the meeting if they thought there might be a contested election.

51 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

ctions taken at a meeting which is not a regular or properly called meeting cannot be ratified.

 

Whoop!  That's news.  Is it stated, or inferable, from p. 124 - 125?

Can they really put this on my RP test?

3 hours ago, Silvertomster said:

What does it mean to say that a meeting is "valid", if the actions taken at he meeting are null and void? (I realize that there's some small number of things that you can do without a quorum, but what would constitute an "invalid" meeting?)

It might be a minor point, if what your concern is that what was done at the meeting seems to have been invalid  (so do you care whether the meeting -- the structure -- is called valid or invalid, when we're saying that the content of the meeting -- what was done -- was intrinsically invalid?

-- geeez, what a question!).

(O darnit, I have entirely lost track.  Are there any loose ends here?)

7 hours ago, George Mervosh said:

Wait you have the 11th Edition?  I know how you got the 10th, but which philanthropic member updated you to the 11th?

The used-dictionary salesman.

On 6/7/2017 at 9:08 AM, Art Layton said:

the complete 11th issue.

On 6/7/2017 at 7:42 PM, Gary c Tesser said:

We call it the 11th "Edition," but as a long-time comic-book fan, I grin at your usage.

6 hours ago, Art Layton said:

Not sure I understand your reference

It's a joke, of little consequence.  When comic books are published, usually monthly, each publication is referred to as an issue.  On the other hand, when Robert's Rules is Newly Revised every ten years or so, as it more-or-less has been since 1970, it's a new edition.

2 hours ago, Jenn said:

The Bylaws state that standing committee chairpersons are appointed by the president.

Why is this not the beginning and the end of the matter?

2 hours ago, Jenn said:

Tenured members and past officers have advised the newly elected president that chairpersons must receive a 30-day notice prior to replacement, AND if the replacements are not completed prior to the start of the service year, (August-May) they cannot be replaced.

Where do these tenured members and past officers get these ideas?

Yeesh.  That too.

4 hours ago, Chris NM said:

but subsequent to the meeting it is determined there was not a quorum

4 hours ago, Chris NM said:

Should the meeting and results have stood

No.

10 hours ago, Art Layton said:

the complete 11th issue

We call it the 11th "Edition," but as a long-time comic-book fan, I grin at your usage.

6 hours ago, Bret Holbert said:

The motion was to discuss vacancy applicants on June 8 then vote on June 21.  Now, the member who creates the agenda has included in said agenda language to discuss and possibly vote to fill the vacancy on June 8, despite the wording of the approved motion in the previous meeting.

Was everyone notified?

Do you have an organizational chart that you can upload, so as to spare me a few hours of constructing my own?

More fundamentally:  Robert's Rules considers an executive committee to be "a board within a board" of the board of directors (equivalently called a board of trustees &c).  It looks as if your organization uses these terms differently.  Also, your topic title asks about the executive board and the board of trustees, but the text of your post doesn't mention the executive board.  So maybe I really do need to see the organizational chart, or a glossary.

But, you ask:

42 minutes ago, bob 82 said:

Can he legally hold both positions?

and:

42 minutes ago, bob 82 said:

Wouldn't this be a conflict of Interest?

and:

43 minutes ago, bob 82 said:

If elected as Financial officer would he have to vacate the position of Trustee??

So where in your rules do you think he couldn't legally hold both positions; and what would be the conflict of interest; and why would he have to vacate the position of trustee?  Is he somehow also the commander?

Also, and perhaps even more fundamentally, maybe abusing my fundament, you say:

48 minutes ago, bob 82 said:

We have established that if a Trustee is elected to the Post of Commander that he has to vacate his position on the Board of Trustees

... so I ask, how have you established this?  A bylaws provision?  custom?  precedent from a ruling derived from some trial by combat?

(I grope for a connection with Robert's Rules in all this, which gives me some kind of sinking feeling....)

46 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

However, does it protect absentees, since a member may have decided "yes, all those nominees are acceptable to me, so I will stay home?"  

How would you argue no?

Well, I'm stumped.

6 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

...

Also, ""."

8 hours ago, Guest Harper said:

And what if the society disagrees? We have no trial?

OF course not.  We have a trial; and the accused gets notified, and all those other rights that Mr Honemann named (and maybe some more) ...

8 hours ago, Guest Harper said:

Or we have a trial in absentia?

Whyever would it be in absentia, unless the accused chooses to absent him- or herself?

8 hours ago, Guest Harper said:

And without a record, audio or written,

Harper, wherever do you get the idea that there will be no record??!?

8 hours ago, Guest Harper said:

how do you know if what people said is true?

(This is kinda tangential ... what difference does it make whether there's a record or not, in determining whether people told the truth?)

6 hours ago, Guest Harper said:

And can the accused demand that it be made available?

As long as the accused is a member, he can see the minutes. 

6 hours ago, Guest Harper said:

It seems to me that the rules are designed, at least on the secrecy issue, to protect the powers that be in the organization

Harper, really, I don't think so; and if you think of it as confidentiality, rather than "secrecy," I think you'll see that it protects everybody equally, if not actually protecting the accused more than the society.  As JJ said (with characteristic perth), "The rule protects the member by not publicly accusing him of some perceived wrongdoing."

On 5/28/2017 at 8:48 AM, Guest audra mitchell said:

or what?

As I think Mr Honemann is suggesting, the original main motion was not processed.  If someone still likes it, he or she should move it anew.

7 hours ago, Guest Harper said:

How do we get out of this mess

Raise a point of order.  Why wouldn't that work?