Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Shmuel Gerber

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Shmuel Gerber

  • Rank
    @ShmuelGerber on Twitter

Profile Information

  • Location:
    Brooklyn, NY

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Shmuel Gerber

    Discipline and Removal

    Because Mr. E (unlike Mr. X, whose name is Mr. D) is just sitting there quietly, minding his own business and would surely leave if anyone asked him to. It would be a shame if the police executed his removal, or any other part of him.
  2. Shmuel Gerber

    Discipline and Removal

    Hmm, I would definitely advise against this wording.
  3. Shmuel Gerber

    Discipline and Removal

    You're answering the question but without any supporting rule or reason (other than your "no vacuum" rule). Also, announcing one's intention is not the same thing as seeking permission, which is what the chair would be doing by saying "If there is no objection . . . ." RONR (pp. 648-49) says, "If a person—whether a member of the assembly or not—refuses to obey the order of proper authority to leave the hall during a meeting, the chair should take necessary measures to see that the order is enforced, but should be guided by a judicious appraisal of the situation. The chair can appoint a committee to escort the offender to the door, or the sergeant-at-arms—if there is one—can be asked to do this. If those who are assigned that task are unable to persuade the offender to leave, it is usually preferable that he be removed by police—who may, however, be reluctant to intervene unless representatives of the organization are prepared to press charges." I agree with Mr. Martin that this means the chair can call the police, if he or she deems it necessary to enforce the removal order, without seeking the approval of the assembly.
  4. Shmuel Gerber

    Discipline and Removal

    Since you're having trouble figuring out what his real name is, just go ahead and called him Mr. X. Unless, of course, the meeting is held in a vacuum.
  5. Shmuel Gerber

    Discipline and Removal

    It depends. Is this meeting taking place at a Starbucks?
  6. Shmuel Gerber

    Voting Between 3 Options

    Your suggestion was that Budget Resolution B be moved as a substitute for Budget Resolution A. If this motion is adopted, the pending motion will consist entirely of the substitute; there is no inserted paragraph within a larger resolution. I think you are being confused by the statement "the resolution now pending is in the position of a paragraph that has been inserted." That text on page 161, which explains the procedure of the example, is alluding to the actual rule on page 155 which states: "After a paragraph, section, or version of a resolution has been substituted for another, the substituted paragraph or resolution cannot be amended except by adding something that does not modify the paragraph's existing content—as is true of any paragraph that has been inserted." (RONR, p. 155, ll. 22-26) This should be read as follows: "After a paragraph, section, or version of a resolution has been substituted for another, the substituted paragraph [or section] or resolution cannot be amended except by adding something that does not modify the paragraph's [its] existing content—as is true of any paragraph [or set of paragraphs or sections] that has been inserted."
  7. Shmuel Gerber

    Voting Between 3 Options

    No, he didn't say that. But what does that have to do with the budget for tea in China?
  8. Shmuel Gerber

    Good cheatsheets

    You should probably be worrying more about the other half. A little learning is a dangerous thing. Well, it's possible that the worse one's initial experience, the more motivation there is to actually read the rule book, but I still wouldn't recommend purposely making the meeting go badly. Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief has some quick-reference material in the last few pages, so get everyone a copy of the book! (Also, make sure to be well rested before the meeting instead of, say, posting to the Robert's Rules forum at all hours of the night.) But seriously, I think that the manner in which the chair conducts the meeting usually will make a much bigger difference to the members' perceptions than any of their misconceptions about, or ignorance of, the rules of order. Once they see that you know what you're doing, the meeting will go fine. (Probably.)
  9. Shmuel Gerber

    Latest Edition

    You must be thinking of the 10th edition.
  10. Shmuel Gerber

    Latest Edition

    The latest edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised is the 11th edition, which was published in September 2011. There are some later printings that may show a different date, but they differ only with respect to the copyright page and a very small number of corrections to typographical errors.
  11. It's not begging the question, but rather stating the obvious. This meeting is not properly called because it is not properly called. First of all, the assembly in question is an executive board, which I assume is subordinate to the membership. The fact that all members of the executive board choose to ignore the bylaws does not mean that "no one objects." Second, the assembly cannot determine anything, because there is no regular or properly called meeting at which that determination is taking place. A claim that the plain language of the bylaws doesn't mean what it says does not create any "ambiguity," no matter how many people make the claim. You are not talking about what the rule actually means, but rather why you think it shouldn't apply in this situation. However, that is not a proper method of bylaws interpretation, except as applied to rules that are in the nature of rules of order. At best what you have is a legal or practical argument as to why a certain provision of the bylaws should not invalidate action taken because no one's rights have been violated. While this may be a reasonable argument for why the actions should be acceptable to the society, it is not a reasonable argument for saying that the bylaws have been complied with and that an actual meeting of the board took place.
  12. The way I read this provision, I think it means that each month's meeting ("the meeting") may be changed to be held in conjunction with an event on a day of that same month that is not the second Tuesday. Or, even if the meeting doesn't have to be held in the same calendar month, I think it would at least have to be held before the regular day of the next month's meeting. In any event, I don't think it means that the June meeting can be held in August.