BabbsJohnson Posted February 28, 2019 at 11:52 PM Report Share Posted February 28, 2019 at 11:52 PM (edited) Got the answers I needed. Edited March 1, 2019 at 01:47 AM by Nosey Privacy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted March 1, 2019 at 12:27 AM Report Share Posted March 1, 2019 at 12:27 AM I have absolutely no context to understand this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BabbsJohnson Posted March 1, 2019 at 12:36 AM Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2019 at 12:36 AM Our bylaws specify RONR as our parliamentary process for all of our corporate processes, which means all board meetings, since that’s where all of our business takes place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted March 1, 2019 at 12:40 AM Report Share Posted March 1, 2019 at 12:40 AM 47 minutes ago, Nosey said: I find this very worrying... Do you have a question? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BabbsJohnson Posted March 1, 2019 at 12:43 AM Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2019 at 12:43 AM Can one or more board members h just choose to disregard that we have a parliamentary process, or refuse to use or acknowledge it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted March 1, 2019 at 12:53 AM Report Share Posted March 1, 2019 at 12:53 AM 9 minutes ago, Nosey said: Can one or more board members h just choose to disregard that we have a parliamentary process, or refuse to use or acknowledge it? It is not proper to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BabbsJohnson Posted March 1, 2019 at 01:06 AM Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2019 at 01:06 AM Since it is specified in our by laws, doesn’t a refusal to use RONR equal a breach of fiduciary duty? RONR is the only thing that keeps meetings fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted March 1, 2019 at 01:16 AM Report Share Posted March 1, 2019 at 01:16 AM (edited) 9 minutes ago, Nosey said: Since it is specified in our by laws, doesn’t a refusal to use RONR equal a breach of fiduciary duty? I don’t know. “Fiduciary duty” is a legal term, not a parliamentary one. Edited March 1, 2019 at 01:16 AM by Josh Martin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BabbsJohnson Posted March 1, 2019 at 01:18 AM Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2019 at 01:18 AM Thank you anyway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted March 1, 2019 at 01:33 AM Report Share Posted March 1, 2019 at 01:33 AM Give your iMessage friend a copy of RONRIB: "Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief", Updated Second Edition (Da Capo Press, Perseus Books Group, 2011). It is a splendid summary of all the rules you will ever need in all but the most exceptional situations. And only $7.50! You can read it in an evening. Get both RONRIB and RONR (scroll down) at this link: http://www.robertsrules.com/inbrief.html Or in your local bookstore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BabbsJohnson Posted March 1, 2019 at 01:41 AM Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2019 at 01:41 AM (edited) I have that one as well as dummies as well as possibly a full text but they are buried having been boxed up after a flood a year ago Digging them out of the garage this weekend Edited March 1, 2019 at 01:42 AM by Nosey Add text Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted March 1, 2019 at 03:49 AM Report Share Posted March 1, 2019 at 03:49 AM 3 hours ago, Joshua Katz said: I have absolutely no context to understand this. I would ask, as a courtesy, that you refrain from editing the entirety of a message I have replied to. In general, we ask people to indicate the edits made when editing a post more than a few moments later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted March 1, 2019 at 05:03 AM Report Share Posted March 1, 2019 at 05:03 AM (edited) 4 hours ago, Nosey said: Can one or more board members h just choose to disregard that we have a parliamentary process, or refuse to use or acknowledge it? 3 hours ago, Nosey said: Since it is specified in our by laws, doesn’t a refusal to use RONR equal a breach of fiduciary duty? RONR is the only thing that keeps meetings fair. Nosey, of course those things are wrong, but there is no such thing as "The RONR Police Department" that you can call when there is a breach of the rules. People have to pretty much follow the rules voluntarily. If they don't, then, PROVIDED YOU HAVE ENOUGH MEMBERS WILLING TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, they can be disciplined, removed from office or expelled. If the membership itself isn't willing to insist that the rules be followed, there isn't much you can do about it other than (a) put up with it, (b) keep trying to convince others to join you, (c) leave the organization, or (d) consult an attorney and consider filing suit... something that is not very likely to enhance your popularity. Edited March 1, 2019 at 05:04 AM by Richard Brown Typographical correction Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted March 1, 2019 at 05:19 AM Report Share Posted March 1, 2019 at 05:19 AM 4 hours ago, Nosey said: Since it is specified in our by laws, doesn’t a refusal to use RONR equal a breach of fiduciary duty? There are three fiduciary duties: the duty of care (usually exculpated), the duty of loyalty, and the duty of good faith. A failure to follow the bylaws may, in some circumstances, make out a case for a breach of the duty of good faith because, in most states, the corporate statutes require the board to obey the bylaws. That is assuming, of course, that there is a fiduciary relationship to begin with. In a stock corporation, the board owes fiduciary duties. In other cases, it is less clear. In any case, it means nothing from a parliamentary standpoint. If you want to complain about a fiduciary breach, you need to consult an attorney and bring a suit, likely a derivative suit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted March 1, 2019 at 05:24 AM Report Share Posted March 1, 2019 at 05:24 AM 4 hours ago, Nosey said: Can one or more board members h just choose to disregard that we have a parliamentary process, or refuse to use or acknowledge it? If nobody raises a point of order, or if a majority lets them get away with it, then they stand a good chance of doing so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BabbsJohnson Posted April 14, 2019 at 09:49 PM Author Report Share Posted April 14, 2019 at 09:49 PM On 2/28/2019 at 7:49 PM, Joshua Katz said: I would ask, as a courtesy, that you refrain from editing the entirety of a message I have replied to. In general, we ask people to indicate the edits made when editing a post more than a few moments later. Sorry, I will refrain from that in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted April 14, 2019 at 10:34 PM Report Share Posted April 14, 2019 at 10:34 PM On 2/28/2019 at 5:52 PM, Nosey said: Got the answers I needed. On 2/28/2019 at 9:49 PM, Joshua Katz said: I would ask, as a courtesy, that you refrain from editing the entirety of a message I have replied to. In general, we ask people to indicate the edits made when editing a post more than a few moments later. Nosey, I join in with the request by Mr. Katz that you refrain from making substantial edits to your posts after they have been up for a few minutes. A few times in the past you have made MAJOR edits to your posts hours (or even a day) after posting them and after several of us have responded. When you delete key parts of your posts, it makes the answers which follow seem nonsensical and there is no factual background for new respondents to consider when responding. Please, do not do this. In your thread about "substantial compliance", you edited the entire background and basis of your question, namely that your organization's attorney said the organization was in "substantial compliance" with its bylaws. The posts that follow now seem nonsensical because they refer to details which you came back and edited out. Please do not do that. The forum administrators imposed new restrictions on our ability to edit posts several months ago because of abuses like this. I am afraid it it continues, they will remove our ability to edit altogether. The edit feature is intended to be used to make minor corrections or add detail inadvertently omitted..... not to drastically delete key facts or to change a post to the point that new posters can't figure out what the previous responses are referring to. btw, one of the features of this forum is the ability of people searching for help to be able to find, read and rely on questions already asked and answered. When you essentially delete your own question, nothing else in the thread makes sense and it is basically useless to others looking for answers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BabbsJohnson Posted April 22, 2019 at 06:41 AM Author Report Share Posted April 22, 2019 at 06:41 AM Yes, I realized that might be an issue after I got cold feet and deleted some of the subjects I was posting about. I will refrain from making such edits in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts