Open for discussion

[Guest Gary c Tesser]

I'm not going to copy Kim's post. I'll number responses, corresponding to Kim's paragraphs, and I hope any further responses will follow the numbers.

1. Well, that might really have disenfranchised the members of their right to debate. But if "

[Guest Kim Goldsworthy]

Kim,

>>[President] has decided that the vote was not valid because there was no discussion.<<

kg: What a dork!

See what you get when you elect clowns to office?

---

>>... this board President is very unfamiliar w"

[Guest Trina]

> There has never been discussion, since I have been a member. Neither for approval of board members or changes to bylaws.

Our bylaws do not require discussion, so we would only be using Robert's Rules of Order. <

If you use Robert"

[Guest Dan Honemann]

>>Mr. Goldsworthy may have said the same thing (as referenced by Mr. Tesser), but his substantive comments seem to have disappeared from this thread.<<

Huh?

"

[Guest Trina]

> Mr. Goldsworthy may have said the same thing (as referenced by Mr. Tesser), but his substantive comments seem to have disappeared from this thread. <

Duhhh... I thought Gary was referencing a missing post by Kim Goldsworthy; obviously he "

[Guest Trina]

And, see, I still wasn't quick enough to catch the error before someone else jumped on it :-)"

[Guest H.Wm.Mountcastle]

The reference to "his substantive comments" gave it away."