Gary c Tesser

You kidding? You're asking what rights are deprived if all rights are deprived? (OK maybe give me an example of a right that is retained when all rights are removed..)

That's partly why this is a question of interpreting your bylaws, which is up to your organization to do, not us parliamentarians (or aspiring parliamentarians like me) on this, The World's Premier Internet Parliamentary Forum. As the "Dinner Guest" points out, your bylaws don't specify who can petition: if we -- like dubiously sensible people-- sensibly interpret the bylaw rule to mean it's only regular, in good standing, members, not some random dorks or random neighbors like me or who knows. Mike Pence or your grandma or whoever -- then, duh, it's only your members in good standing who can do anything, period.

Boy, I hope you actually bought The right Book (Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, 11th Edition, from Da Capo Press, Reg. Penna. Dept. Agr.). I myself lucked out in 1992,

But Dan, what then does "with power" (l. 23 -25) mean?

Do you want to second-guess your attorney? Heavens!

Yeah, some people make that assumption. Mostly cannibals, or college graduates.

For pity's sake, Revness, will you please let go of your preconception that board meetings are the only meetings, that is, that the membership meets only once a year; and that the board of directors (by default) generally is the entity that routinely, ongoingly, makes the decisions for the organization?

I'm on the fence, but are you thinking about p. 450, #10?

Yeah, there's that too.

Well, thanks, Scorpion , but partly the "highly unlikely" is what I'm grappling wth.

(Welcome. Please feel free to drop in often.) No, not at all, no way (unless your organization does have rules, which I think would have to be in the bylaws, that give hijm that right.).

Maybe I'm being slow here, but why is this, assuming frequent meetings-cum-sessions, and that the next meeting/session will occur 60 or more days hence (but of course within the quarterly time interval)?

(Great Glittering Gobbets of Goo! Suckered into making them up!)

... ~"and whatever standing rules or special rules of order we come up with * "~ _______ N.B. The tilde + quotation mark designates quasi-quotes. __________ * or, Freds or Wilmas or Bang-Bangs... That's either some arcane rules of art or an in-joke among Internet parliamentarians (and aspiring parliamentarians like me ).

(Great Steaming Cobnuts. Suckered into interpreting bylaws again.)

Are you kidding? How could they possibly?

What??!?

Especially not novices like these guys.

Oh c'mon. Nobody can do that.

That might be pretty much it.

Thanks.

I'm looking at this, not with reference to any particular instance -- but talking about what the applicable rules are, generally (so that the specific facts about any particular case are irrelevant and probably intrinsically misleading) : "to the possibility that this committee is under the authority of the society and not the board. In that case, does its rejection of the motion it was empowered to decide put the proposal beyond the reach of the board, in accordance with RONR (11th ed.), p. 577, ll. 23–28?" It looks to me as if Guest Who's's [wups, sp.] question is legit, and the alleged incoherency, and the putative contradiction, and the insinuated omission, deal only with the painful supplementary post by the OP; and so it's clear that God (as we his fans call him, not to be confused with Himself &c &c ) and GPN were flailing against those tangential, misleading, and irrelevant questions, with the valiance and intrepidity routinely encountered from valiant and intrepid parliamentarians (and maybe some aspiring parliamentarians like me), but not touching the basic question. So Dan (or, certainly, anyone else inclined to weigh in on the question, especially as it's now 10 AM and so well after Dan's bedtime, which is officially September1986): what do we think about when a society's committee, authorized to act (p. 490, middle) on a question, rejects it; but the well-empowered board of directors still wants to act on the question? (It seems to me that the question can stand on its own. It's a general question What difference would it make if we reduced the question to something about the specific rules of a VFD; or or a HOA, or, say, a marijuana-growers' collective, which, now that the damn gummint will finally get off the people's backs now that the overweening socialists (are there any other kind?) have been shoved aside, maybe for four years or so, can get about their free American free-enterprise patriotic entrepreneurial work? How would that help clarify the answer to Guest Who's's (ow) general, theoretical question? )

N.B. Neologism.

N. B. Just kidding about George bleating. He doesn't, he fusticates.