Dan Honemann Posted January 22, 2017 at 12:58 AM Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 at 12:58 AM 9 minutes ago, Richard Brown said: Yes, I do understand your response to the original, unedited version of my motion/rule. RONR already specifies that it is the secretary's duty to send notices, so the only effect of the original version of my motion/rule was to impose a five day advance notice requirement. Rules specifying the number of days notice required are apparently in the nature of standing rules and not rules of order. Yep, I think I've got that part. And that's why I immediately edited the motion to make the vice president, rather than the secretary, responsible for sending the notices. I made that change specifically to make it different from the rule in RONR that it is the secretary's duty to send notices. So, with that in mind, using the motion/rule as I edited it and as it appears in this thread, would the rule be a rule of order or a standing rule? It has characteristics of both. But I still would first like to know whether or not this organization has adopted RONR as its parliamentary authority, and if so, how. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted January 22, 2017 at 01:18 AM Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 at 01:18 AM Seems to me that sending notification is still a "duty of officers in that connection", even though you have handed off the duty to another officer. Thus special rule of order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted January 22, 2017 at 10:00 AM Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 at 10:00 AM Q. Can you suspend such a rule of order? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted January 22, 2017 at 12:03 PM Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 at 12:03 PM To what end? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted January 22, 2017 at 12:09 PM Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 at 12:09 PM As I mentioned a while back, I don't like facts being made up as we go along, and there are too many facts relevant and material to the question asked which have not been provided. The facts provided are as follows: "Suppose the assembly adopts the following motion, and that it is adopted without objection: 'The vice president shall send out notices of special meetings at least five days prior to the special meeting'. Nothing more. It's not proposed as any particular kind of rule, just as a 'garden variety motion'. And since it was adopted without objection, it was adopted by unanimous consent with also meets any requirement of a two thirds vote. Let's even assume that previous notice was given of the proposed motion." The question asked is: "What kind of rule is that? Is it a standing rule or a special rule of order?" The problem I have with this is that we are not told anything at all about what the bylaws of this organization provide concerning special meetings, the duties of its officers, its parliamentary authority, etc., and if its bylaws contain anything approaching what they should contain the answer to the question asked will be that the motion which was adopted creates no rule at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted January 23, 2017 at 05:24 AM Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 at 05:24 AM Yer demonstrably a pair of commies. Or college graduates. As if that's a significant distinction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted January 23, 2017 at 05:26 AM Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 at 05:26 AM 17 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said: As I mentioned a while back, I don't like facts being made up as we go along ... And which planet do you think you're on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts