|
|
Post by rgeorge on Sept 15, 2023 19:27:46 GMT -8
In a regular meeting, which the September 13, 2023, meeting was not, agendas must be distributed at least four weeks beforehand. In a special meeting, the Commissioner sets the agenda. But regardless of the agenda going in, anything can be added to the agenda at any regular meeting by a two-thirds vote. So, basically anything could possibly be on the agenda, regardless of what the actual agenda pre-meeting was. exactly. Hence Kliavkoff was prepared to introduce voting and actions regarding asset management and conference dissolution. Both potentially destructive to the Pac 2. How do you know? First it's evidence of ill will and intent. Now you know George's unannounced "secret" agenda? |
|
|
|
Post by hottubbeaver on Sept 18, 2023 8:06:13 GMT -8
Defense counsel claimed that was not on the agenda sent out to all parties for the meeting in question. Without having read the by-laws in their entirety I don't know if an item can be raised and voted on which is not on the agenda. Any issue requiring a vote may need to be raised, seconded, and then put on the agenda for a vote at a subsequent meeting. Basically without knowing the procedures set forth in the bylaws leads to a lot of guessing, speculation, and ifs. In a regular meeting, which the September 13, 2023, meeting was not, agendas must be distributed at least four weeks beforehand. In a special meeting, the Commissioner sets the agenda. But regardless of the agenda going in, anything can be added to the agenda at any regular meeting by a two-thirds vote. So, basically anything could possibly be on the agenda, regardless of what the actual agenda pre-meeting was. Wiky can you clarify your post because your last sentence seems to imply something contradictory to everything said prior. The meeting which was scheduled for Wed. 13th was called by the Commissioner therefore, as I read your post, it was NOT a regular meeting, it was a special meeting. Is it your understanding a special meeting agenda can be changed by a 2/3rds vote dung the meeting, or is that reserved for only regular meetings. This is a substantial point and I don't find it clearly answered in your post. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Sept 18, 2023 12:05:11 GMT -8
In a regular meeting, which the September 13, 2023, meeting was not, agendas must be distributed at least four weeks beforehand. In a special meeting, the Commissioner sets the agenda. But regardless of the agenda going in, anything can be added to the agenda at any regular meeting by a two-thirds vote. So, basically anything could possibly be on the agenda, regardless of what the actual agenda pre-meeting was. Wiky can you clarify your post because your last sentence seems to imply something contradictory to everything said prior. The meeting which was scheduled for Wed. 13th was called by the Commissioner therefore, as I read your post, it was NOT a regular meeting, it was a special meeting. Is it your understanding a special meeting agenda can be changed by a 2/3rds vote dung the meeting, or is that reserved for only regular meetings. This is a substantial point and I don't find it clearly answered in your post. My apologies. Lawyers should really use capitalization, when I am calling things by their technical terms. I obviously rushed that one. Anything can be added to the agenda at any meeting by a two-thirds vote. |
|
|
|
Post by hottubbeaver on Sept 18, 2023 12:35:00 GMT -8
Wiky can you clarify your post because your last sentence seems to imply something contradictory to everything said prior. The meeting which was scheduled for Wed. 13th was called by the Commissioner therefore, as I read your post, it was NOT a regular meeting, it was a special meeting. Is it your understanding a special meeting agenda can be changed by a 2/3rds vote dung the meeting, or is that reserved for only regular meetings. This is a substantial point and I don't find it clearly answered in your post. My apologies. Lawyers should really use capitalization, when I am calling things by their technical terms. I obviously rushed that one. Anything can be added to the agenda at any meeting by a two-thirds vote. Hence why the judge added the "unanimous" vote stipulation to the TRO after defense counsels argument dissolution was not on the agenda. Your post final clarifies where the bylaws stood on that possibility going into the scheduled meeting. I think it only strengthens our legal position he scheduled such a meeting and more due to the invitees than the actual calling of the meeting. |
|
|
|
Post by korculabeav on Sept 19, 2023 6:31:32 GMT -8
So, can we fire George of the Jungle now?
|
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Sept 19, 2023 10:56:57 GMT -8
So, can we fire George of the Jungle now? Why disparage a quality cartoon character?  |
|
|
|
Post by jefframp on Sept 19, 2023 11:53:52 GMT -8
|
|
