Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

empowered committee shutting out board?


Gary c Tesser
 Share

Recommended Posts

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 by Gary c Tesser
Put quotation marks around "i.e."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...