Gary c Tesser

2 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Well, if the bylaws say that a rule cannot be suspended, I think it's a rule that cannot be suspended. 

What if that bylaws provision were deleted first?

Do you say that the US Constitution's Article V (since they didn't have a "5" when the Constitution was written, Arabic numerals were introduced in the 1920's for labelling bottles of one-fifth of a gallon -- I know this because I read it on the Internet just after I wrote it), where it says "The Congress ... shall propose amendments ... provided ... that no State, without its consent shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate", could be amended out, as easily as anything else, like the right to drink or women vote (but not drink women, good heavens I was kidding the other day about cannibalism and zombies*)?

_________

*And probably kidding about it now too.

Someone please wake up Dr Stackpole!

1 hour ago, J. J. said:

I will with the adage that a bylaw that says that it cannot be suspended cannot be suspended,

8 minutes ago, J. J. said:

Yes.  A rule that says something can or can't be amended is a rule in the nature of a rule of order.

So what in sam hill, JJ??!!?

I'd look it up but Richard Brown was going to buy me a copy of PL in San Antonio in 2003 but Rod Davidson and his sister went and dragged us off to lunch or dinner, day after day, and we never got around to it.  Also it was September and my birthday six months away (unlike now).

48 minutes ago, J. J. said:

If Article III said, as its last line, "None of the provisions of this Article may be amended." and the assembly were to amend those provisions, I think that a point of order that this violated the bylaws would have to be timely.  An amendment does seem to be a rule in the nature of order.

I will with the adage that a bylaw that says that it cannot be suspended cannot be suspended, but that is not the case here. 

I don't get it, are these two statements somehow consistent??

11 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

Pardon me for mentioning this, but a resignation must be accepted before it becomes final. A person submitting their resignation brings a halt to absolutely nothing. An assembly is the final judge in all such matters.

4 hours ago, Godelfan said:

Yes, although it seems unlikely that a group in the process of removing someone would decide not to accept their resignation.

Only the question of "You don't fire me, I quit" vs. "No, we're darn well firing you."

On 2/26/2017 at 0:38 AM, Rev Ed said:

It all depends ...  But this is all up to the organization to decide, not for anyone on this forum.

Hey, bud, nice work.

4 hours ago, Godelfan said:

Until this conversation, I would have assumed full power to mean controlling the actions of the organization during a particular time, and power to refer to having control over a particular item, but it seems that there's no significance attached to full.

Until this post of Godelfan's, this take would not have occurred to me, but now -- sorry, Gandalf --  I think I like it.

3 hours ago, mjhmjh said:

Such committees would have to be composed of board members

I'm overlooking the requirement for this in RONR:  someone point it out, please?

What kind of magic could turn minutes into a city?

9 minutes ago, George Mervosh said:

a rule of order and subject to a suspension of the rules?

A rule of order, yeah, but protecting a minority, individual members, absentees, President Trump and some lost puppies and kittens.

On topic thread robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/29577-initial-motion/ , , right now the OP is labelled "Posted 6 hours ago"; the second post (i.e., the first reply), Kim Goldsworthy's, is labelled "Posted 4 hours ago," and likewise the next, Guest Zev's, "4 hours ago"; but then the next, Hieu H Huynh's, says "Posted 1 [sic, "one"] minute ago," but the post after his, OP Travis's,  thanking him, is labelled "Posted 9 minutes ago".  (The next post, mine, is labelled "Posted just now.")  What in sam hill?

______________

N. B. The thread title is a pun.  Ghaaah, I hate puns.

10 hours ago, Kim Goldsworthy said:

"Initial"?

What kind of motion is this "initial motion"?

Like, if it were you, you would gain the attention of the presiding officer (like maybe gently slapping your adorable pudgy ruddy cheek a couple times till the chair muttered "Huh, wha [speaking Californian]? -- oh, that's me"), rise, and address the assembly, saying, ~"Your presiding officer ("Huh, wha [speaking Californian]? -- oh, that's me") is pleased to move KG."~ Analogously, I, as a New Yorker, would jump up, shove the currently speaking member out the nearest window, gain the attention of the presiding officer by stabbing my left eye out with a howitzer, and say, "If it please Her Majesty, I, her obedient servant, move GcT" (note no quasi-quotes:  this has gotta be verbatim.  It's New York.).  Former US President George W. Bush would say ~"Wull, y'all know 'A''s golburn mobal, mobal, mobal, um, mobaloni, GWB "~.  Former US president Hussein Barack Hussein Hussein Hussein Hussein Obama Hussein hereby sign this Executive Order shoving Goldsworthy and Tesser out the nearest window, but it's legal, because drones will do it.  And some day maybe I'll figure out what current US president Trump would say if I could ever figure out whatever he says because I can't make heads or tails of that impenetrable Queens accent.

So, then, regretfully risking being tedious, what's the significance of "full"?

18 hours ago, mjhmjh said:

I don't think there's a distinction in RONR between power and full power. It seems to me that Richard added the second paragraph of his post after posting and simply forgot to amend the first paragraph.

Thank you, mjh; anybody else on this, please?

On 2/23/2017 at 2:50 PM, Guest Linda Regalado said:

Hi, I am the vice president of a farmers market board, it's been 4 weeks and nothing but headaches, I need to know if an email resignation, one that I sent stating my resignation will suffice or do I need to attend the next board meeting and hand in a written letter of resignation. The president sent an email to me saying he accepts it, other board members want me to reconsider.

I want to resign without making this a long drawn out process.

 

Thank you

Linda Regalado

Guest Linda Regalado, given all the digressions, can we take it that we have told you what you want to know?

20 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Is this the Nancy way of recalling things such as the sentence on page 456, lines 25-28? 

Nope, I was thinking of something else this time.  Really -- that somewhere, and not obscurely (such as maybe hidden in Section 41, the bete noir of aspiring parliamentarians like me) the book says that the officers do whatever the organization orders (i.e., with a main motion, and pretty much as a p. 18 Standing Rule).

17 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

I see nothing wrong with Rev Ed's response to the original question based on the information provided,

No, of course not:  But I hold Rev Ed to a higher standard.  Which he has, over and over again, exemplarily earned.

_______

N. B. That can be taken as a compliment.  My mother, who had much more experience teaching professionally than I did (i.e., decades, compared to zero), used to complain that I was a monstrously hard marker.

... She ... um.

13 hours ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

Why are you shouting?

(I was worked up.  That's what shouting is for.  And I only capitalized two words.  Rev Ed is so capable of much more than this, so when he falls back on habits that I, and others, have gently addressed him on (or, OK, taken him to task, or even taken a strip off his back, but really, I don't think it often came to that), I get exasperated.  And for pity's sake, he's a canad.  He should know better.)

Oh for G-d's sake, Cameron.

2 hours ago, George Mervosh said:

this site doesn't charge per word

Great Steamin' Cobnuts, I thought the rest of youse was gettin' paid!

4 hours ago, Gary c Tesser said:

and most likely it will be the Secretary

4 hours ago, Gary c Tesser said:

Ooo, so does this make a qualitative difference (and if so, what)?

(LOL)

What if it's the secretary, or anyone else?  Is there any significance ("qualitative difference," for college graduates) to whether it's the secretary or anyone else who maintains the guest register?

1 hour ago, George Mervosh said:

and most likely it will be the Secretary

Ooo, so does this make a qualitative difference (and if so, what)?

9 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

I think a rule authorizing someone to sign checks should be a standing rule. It is purely administrative

I support this.

No wonder Mr Brown's head hurts.