Gary c Tesser

Just now, Gary c Tesser said:

The question really becomes what is a members rights or what rights do they give up if debarred from all rights of membership?

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..)

On 2/21/2017 at 3:59 PM, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

If all your bylaws say is that "all written petitions submitted to the president shall be investigated," then it doesn't really matter who submits the petition, now does it? I could submit a petition to your president and (s)he will have to investigate according to this rule. If that outcome seems absurd, then it's up to your organization to interpret the rule differently.

On 2/21/2017 at 9:04 PM, aqwnbee said:

Thank you!

On 2/21/2017 at 11:59 AM, aqwnbee said:

The question really becomes what is a members rights or what rights do they give up if debarred from all rights of membership? The petition to look into the other members conduct  was given to the president by a member in bad standings. (Many people have been investigated in the past by this petition method) The president presented the letter to the investigation committee who did review the petition. ... Now the member who the petition was about is saying that because the member who petitioned the committee was not in good standings he did not have the right to petition the president

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.

On 2/21/2017 at 11:59 AM, aqwnbee said:

I  am going to Barns and Noble tonight to buy the newest RR as we are depending on a very old copy. 

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,

On 2/21/2017 at 2:05 PM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I think that nothing that is said on page 490 contemplates a situation in which a society’s assembly refers a pending motion to a committee with instructions to decide it (finally dispose of it by adoption or rejection) in behalf of the society

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

Do you want to second-guess your attorney?

Heavens!

3 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Comments? 

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?

7 hours ago, George Mervosh said:

What if the additional duty they want is to have President (let's call her Nancy N. but not name her in the rule) be a signatory on all checks (or cheques for you canads) issued by the organization?

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

8 hours ago, Godelfan said:

Fine.  But I still have on idea what content to put on "as best we can."  I can't imagine any situation where a point of order is raised and the response could be "we're not going to do it right because we only do as best as we can."

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.).

19 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Maybe.

As best I can determine, adoption of a motion to postpone a pending motion for 60 days is almost sure to be meaningless unless the motion is made during a session which will continue for 60 more days.

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!)

9 hours ago, mjhmjh said:

If not, how should the bylaws be amended to allow this?

10 hours ago, mjhmjh said:

"The officers shall perform the duties prescribed in the parliamentary authority and these bylaws ...

... ~"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.)

9 hours ago, mjhmjh said:

The bylaws read as follows, "The officers shall perform the duties prescribed in the parliamentary authority and these bylaws"

9 hours ago, mjhmjh said:

Can additional duties be prescribed as standing rules

Are you kidding?  How could they possibly?

2 hours ago, jstackpo said:

If your bylaws include the standard phrasing found in the sample RONR bylaws, Article VIII, page 588, that will cover it.

What??!?

3 minutes ago, Gary c Tesser said:

Oh c'mon.  Nobody can do that.

Especially not novices like these guys.

On 2/20/2017 at 11:25 AM, Godelfan said:

... it seems to me that "as best we can" is perfectly.

Oh c'mon.  Nobody can do that.

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

I am not creating memoranda and that they should take their own notes if they want a summary of everything said during the meeting.

That might be pretty much it.

4 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

...

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? )

1 hour ago, jstackpo said:

...

N.B. Neologism.

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