Gary c Tesser Posted February 19, 2017 at 07:10 AM Report Share Posted February 19, 2017 at 07:10 AM (edited) In the discussion thread "Counselor", by Guest Abc123, URL http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/29485-counselor , fairly regular poster Guest Who's, &c, asks: "I believe Mr. Huynh alludes 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?" I request more follow-up on this than what appeared there, please, viz. (or "i.e.", I forget which is which), pretty much me whining and George bleating. Edited February 24, 2017 at 11:30 AM by Gary c Tesser Put quotation marks around "i.e." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted February 19, 2017 at 07:13 AM Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2017 at 07:13 AM N. B. Just kidding about George bleating. He doesn't, he fusticates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted February 19, 2017 at 07:14 AM Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2017 at 07:14 AM N.B. Neologism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted February 19, 2017 at 12:16 PM Report Share Posted February 19, 2017 at 12:16 PM When a question is asked such as the one which you have quoted from the referenced thread, and the facts needed to respond in any meaningful way are either provided in an incoherent or contradictory fashion or omitted altogether, what sort of follow-up are you looking for? It seems that Godelfan and Novosielski attempted to elicit at least some of the necessary information, but to no avail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted February 20, 2017 at 05:12 PM Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2017 at 05:12 PM 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? ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted February 21, 2017 at 07:05 PM Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 at 07:05 PM Buried deep within the immediately preceding post I find this: “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?” I can't say what “we” think, but 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 assuming that this is what the question assumes to be the case, I think that the board will be bound by the committee’s decision just the same as if the decision had been made by the society’s assembly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted February 21, 2017 at 11:21 PM Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2017 at 11:21 PM 4 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said: ... Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted February 24, 2017 at 11:41 AM Author Report Share Posted February 24, 2017 at 11:41 AM 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts