Leo Posted May 31, 2016 at 09:14 PM Report Share Posted May 31, 2016 at 09:14 PM What is the status of parenthetical expressions used in bylaws? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted May 31, 2016 at 09:23 PM Report Share Posted May 31, 2016 at 09:23 PM The current edition ("Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised", 11th edition, 2011) does not say. So, I think I am safe in saying, "Parentheses have no status whatsoever in the parliamentary realm." *** Yet, to the contrary . . . Where a NUMBER is represented TWICE, once in spelling, and once in digits in parentheses, then you have a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted May 31, 2016 at 09:31 PM Report Share Posted May 31, 2016 at 09:31 PM 14 minutes ago, Leo said: What is the status of parenthetical expressions used in bylaws? What would you say is the "status" of parenthetical expressions used in responses posted in this forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted May 31, 2016 at 09:55 PM Report Share Posted May 31, 2016 at 09:55 PM Hopefully they add clarity to the bylaws (as opposed to creating an ambiguous situation). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted June 1, 2016 at 02:01 AM Report Share Posted June 1, 2016 at 02:01 AM 4 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said: What would you say is the "status" of parenthetical expressions used in responses posted in this forum? Usually they are of very high status, although sometimes the most pedestrian of expressions try to sneak in as though they are parenthetical (the lousy poseurs). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo Posted August 11, 2016 at 12:15 PM Author Report Share Posted August 11, 2016 at 12:15 PM "Status" If parenthetical expressions are intended to explain the meaning of the sentence, are they enforceable as the rule or the law itself.. 1 The sentence is the rule and is enforceable. 2 The parenthetical expression helps to clarify the sentence. 3 Is the parenthetical expression itself enforceable? When bills are read for legislative bodies the parenthetical expressions are not read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted August 11, 2016 at 12:41 PM Report Share Posted August 11, 2016 at 12:41 PM There is nothing in RONR which would indicate that parenthetical expressions contained in bylaws are to be accorded any less "status" than any of the other bylaw provisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted August 11, 2016 at 03:00 PM Report Share Posted August 11, 2016 at 03:00 PM 2 hours ago, Leo said: 3. Is the parenthetical expression itself enforceable? Q. Why would such a part of one's bylaws be seen as being "un-enforceable"? There is nothing in Robert's Rules which implies: "Parenthesis don't count. Go ahead and put nonsense into parentheses, because parenthetic comments are not real bylaws." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted August 11, 2016 at 11:49 PM Report Share Posted August 11, 2016 at 11:49 PM 8 hours ago, Kim Goldsworthy said: Q. Why would such a part of one's bylaws be seen as being "un-enforceable"? There is nothing in Robert's Rules which implies: "Parenthesis don't count. Go ahead and put nonsense into parentheses, because parenthetic comments are not real bylaws." It's on page 962. It's in parentheses, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted August 12, 2016 at 12:31 AM Report Share Posted August 12, 2016 at 12:31 AM Ah! Inside joke. *** For readers do not not get the inside joke of Godelfan: (a.) RONR 11th edition (2011) holds 716 pages. (b.) So a reference to pages in the 800's or 900's implies non-existent page. (c.) And for future reference, the current edition is the eleventh edition. So any reference to the 12th or 13th or 20th edition is likewise an inside joke. *** Reminds me the Bud Abbott & Lou Costello routine, "Who's On First?" but with a parliamentary theme -- "Who's Adjourned? Quote LOU: So, to end the meeting, the man with the hammer raps the hammer to end the meeting, and the meeting is ... the meeting is ... BUD: Adjourned. LOU: Adjourned! You didn't have to tell me! I knew it all along! BUD: Of course you did. LOU: Great! Now we're making progress! This ain't so hard! Now, what if, after the meeting is -- convened -- the man with the wooden hammer sees that there is no -- quorum -- then he suggests that the meeting continue to another day. When he does that, the continuation meeting is ... the continuation meeting ... [LOU looks at BUD, but BUD doesn't give the answer] LOU: Okay, now I need help. What kind of meeting is the continuation meeting? BUD: Adjourned. LOU: No, I'm talking about the next meeting of the members, not the current meeting. BUD: And I'm telling you! Adjourned! LOU: Wait! Stay out of the current meeting! Let's go to the next meeting. What is the continuation meeting? BUD: Adjourned! LOU: No, it can't be adjourned! It hasn't happened yet! BUD: The 'meeting' is 'adjourned.' LOU: Cut that out! BUD: Cut what out? [etc.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.