Questions about procedues not found in minutes

[Guest Pigeon Patty]

We have a question about "standing procedures" and the "we have always done it this way" routines. When trying to rectify changes to these old rules no motions were found nor discussions in the minutes where they were initially approved. How do we go about changing or cancelling the current policies/procedures?

[Josh Martin]

How do we go about changing or cancelling the current policies/procedures?

Well, that depends on exactly what the situation is here. If the assembly is certain that these policies were adopted and the minutes are simply in error, then the policies are amended or canceled the same way as usual - through use of the motions to Amend Something Previously Adopted or to Rescind. Either requires a 2/3 vote, vote of a majority of the entire membership, or a majority vote with previous notice. You might want to use ASPA to fix those old minutes while you're at it.

On the other hand, if the situation is that no policies were ever adopted and the current practices have been followed simply as a matter of custom, a majority vote will be sufficient to change or cease the custom (or the demand of a single member, if a custom conflicts with the written rules of the assembly).

[Kim Goldsworthy]

We have a question about "standing procedures" and the "we have always done it this way" routines.

When trying to rectify changes to these old rules no motions were found nor discussions in the minutes where they were initially approved.

How do we go about changing or cancelling the current policies/procedures?

In general, whatever a policy is, and whenever it had been adopted (or assumed, or initiated, etc.), the "solution" is to RESCIND that policy.

Granted, it may be hard to tell apart:

(a.) whims, caprice, spontaneous inspiration

... from ...

(b.) that which was adopted formally, or got put in place by a ruling of the chair, or by an appeal, or by custom, by tradition.

Even so, the template would be the same, e.g.,

"I move to rescind the practice of the secretary sending out monthly birthday cards."

"Regarding the no-smoking policy, I move to [annul/repeal] it."

The format is simple:

• State the policy.

• State what you want to do about it.

[Gary c Tesser]

[snip]

So Kim, what about what Josh said?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

So Kim, what about what Josh said?

Yeah, Gary, what about it?

[Gary Novosielski]

Yeah, Gary, what about it?

Huh?

[Chris Harrison]

Huh?

The other Gary.

[Gary Novosielski]

The other Gary.

Oh.

I thought I was the other Gary.

[Josh Martin]

So Kim, what about what Josh said?

Well, I'm not sure what Mr. Goldsworthy said actually conflicts with what I said. He just didn't go into the vote required. He's correct that the process is more or less the same.

[Gary c Tesser]

Well, I'm not sure what Mr. Goldsworthy said actually conflicts with what I said. He just didn't go into the vote required. He's correct that the process is more or less the same.

No, it didn't conflict, it merely confused the issue to the innocent reader by not making clear how anything he said differed from what Mr Martin said, or by not clarifying what he meant to expand on what Mr Martin said.

I suspect I'm gonna be something of a pest about this kind of less-than-optimally-helpful posting on this website for a while, and I'll probably not be the only one. (Okay, unless I really am.)

[Kim Goldsworthy]

No, it didn't conflict, it merely confused the issue to the innocent reader by not making clear how anything he said differed from what Mr Martin said, or by not clarifying what he meant to expand on what Mr Martin said.

Ah! THERE is your problem.

I was not responding to JOSH's post.

I was responding to the original poster, "Pigeon Patty".

I am not under any obligation to drag innocent JOSH into my posted reply.

He has committed no crime. Why should his post suffer, just because I am posting below his post?

***

Note that JOSH's answer when from the specific to the general.

("It depends ... If ... If ...").

Note that my answer when from the general to the specific.

("In general ... For example ...).

Well, that depends on [...].

If the assembly is certain that [...],

then the policies are amended or canceled [...] through use of [...] Amend Something Previously Adopted or to Rescind.

Either requires [vote requirement]

You might want to use ASPA to fix those old minutes while you're at it.

On the other hand, if [...]

[then] a majority vote will be sufficient [...]

if a custom conflicts with the written rules of the assembly.

Reversing the topic sentence's location from atop a post to the bottom of a post does not make one answer right and one answer wrong.

Agree?

***

It is like the old joke.

Q. How do I get to Carnegie Hall?

A. Practice, man, practice.

If the question is generic, then the most you can do is give a generic answer.

If you do not know where the traveler stands, then it is quite difficult to give a specific solution. (Is he standing in NYC Grand Central Station? Is he standing in Tokyo, Japan?)

Pigeon Patty gave us neither (a.) the actual custom/tradition in question; (b.) its definite origin.

That being the case, then I think we should give the parliamentary solution for those customs/traditions where NO ONE KNOWS WHERE IT CAME FROM, first, before citing exceptional cases.

If you hear hoof beats, think "horses," not "zebras."

If you have an undocumented tradition/custom thrust upon you,

and you know not whence it came,

then your first line of defense is to undo it so as to finesse that missing lacuna of evolutionary origin.

(Else, you risk disagreement with the membership on its point of origin:

"It was officially adopted!" "No, it wasn't, it was just made up on the fly!" "Oh, yes it was!" "Oh, no it wasn't!" "Your mother wears army shoes!" "So's your old man!")

Agree?

***