J. J.

My answer is identical.

Suppose that adjournment was set for 5:00 PM, and at 3:00 PM, the final item of business is disposed of, at least temporarily. Would just under 2/3 of the members voting have to sit there for two hours twiddling there thumbs because just over 1/3 of the members voting want to stay in session? Also, as a main motion, could the motion to adjourn at a specific time be reconsidered?

The assembly can lay the pending question on the table first.

Lay On the Table is not being used to suppress a question without debate, in this example. The assembly has determined, in the set of circumstances given, that adjournment is more urgent than these motions.

While I agree, it is dependent of if another motion is pending or not. If there is another motion pending, the main motion to adjourn is not in order. There are a lot of nuances in this situation.

If the purpose is not to defeat the motions, and you meet at least as often as quarterly, you could lay each question on the table, when pending (17:14). That would require a majority vote. If this is done, the motions could be taken from the table at the next meeting under either unfinished business, new business, or under the class of business to which the motion belongs. For example, if this were a standing committee report, it could taken off the table at the next meeting during standing committee reports, or under unfinished business, or under new business.

Even without a quorun present, it is possible to schedule an adjourned meeting (40:7).

The standard in RONR is expressed by Mr. Martin, without regard to what the society's rule might be. That is parliamentary law, in the sense that RONR uses it (p. xxix). The possibility that I note includes rules that the creating body may have adopted for bodies of this specific type (p. xxx). It would be a better analogy if the assembly adopted the varying rules. It would not be "parliamentary law" as defined in RONR.

It did occur to me that this exchange illustrates the difference between parliamentary law and parliamentary procedure.

I agree with Mr. Martin and would not find that it makes a difference if reconsideration took place at the same meeting or not. As per 48:4 #6, both final and temporary disposition should be shown. For example, a main motion is tabled (properly) and taken from the table later in the meeting, both actions should be shown.

In some states, a mayor may be elected by a shorter period. In my state, of the more than 900 mayoral positions, most are not permitted by statute to be a member of the council at the same time (though they are elected at the same time as council); you comment would be correct as to the election timing. However, not every state is my state. Guest Robert could provide perhaps more detailed information.

Only if they are members of that subcommittee (1:4).

List the adoption of the motion. Then, when reconsider is moved: "________ moved to reconsider the motion [list motion]. The motion to reconsider was adopted. Upon reconsideration, the motion [list motion] was defeated." This would be how I would do it. The motion to reconsider should clearly be included in the minutes, when it involves a main motion (48:4 #6).

Two offices can be filled by one person, especially due to a single absence. The chair of a small committee often keeps a memorandum that is similar to minutes. It violates no rule.

That may not be correct. It is possible that the mayor made the appointments and submitted then to council; when pending, they were laid on the table. The mayor's term ended, but the term of council did not. In that case, the motion could be taken from the table and considered, subject to the rules relating to the motion Lay On the Table, i.e. at some point beyond the end of the next session and within the quarterly time interval (17:6-9). There is also the possibility that there is a single session, that may constitute a number of meeting throughout the year, with each additional effectively being an adjourned meeting. (I have references to some public bodies doing that in previous posts.) There is not enough information provided to determine if this correct or incorrect under RONR.

A just love ambiguity (this site needs a sarcasm font).

Putting something on a proposed agenda is not making a motion.

Without knowing what your bylaws say, specifically, a clear answer could not be stated.

It has to be greater than 1/5 in this case. 1/5 will not guarantee an election.

The problem with Dr. Kapur's premise is that it assumes coordination of the minority and it implies that this minority is needed to elect. Even in the example, one person is shown not coordinating his votes and voting for four candidates. Several others could do the same. In this example, there are five candidates, G, H, J, K, & M. 120 voters each cast 4 votes for the seats, using cumulative voting. Voting is done by a non secret ballot. Ballots 1-20 has all 4 votes for G (80 votes) Ballot 21-24 has three votes for G (12 votes), and one vote for J (4) Ballot 25 1 vote each for G, H, J, & K. Ballot 26-100 has one vote each for H, J, K, & M (each get 75 votes) Ballot 101-120 H gets all four (80 votes) The total are: G gets 93 votes H gets 156 votes J gets 80 votes K gets 76 votes M gets 75 votes Any number greater than 1/(P+1) absolutely assures an election, but someone could get equal to or less than that amount and still be elected.

No, pre-planning is not necessarily, as was demonstrated. The minority may be an ad hoc one. Further, no group could enforce how to vote on even a minority.

A minority (of more than one) will always be a group. It would not necessarily pre-plan action, as in the case of the castor of vote 25.

Mathematically, it can be properly expressed as a "particular size." It seems clear that "the minority protected by the rule," in this case is any minority larger that 1/5. It is similar to saying, correctly, that a majority is any number greater than one half, whether that is a number greater than 51/101, or 101/200, or 501/1000. Majority still equals any number greater than 1/2 of the votes cast, much like a minority would constitute any number less than or equal to one half of the votes cast. "Particular" means "of, relating to, or being a single person or thing." That looks it would be the particular size of the the minority, in the given situation.

It does give a minority of less than one third (where there are more than 2 positions to be elected), the ability to elect one person in all cases. That seems to be more than a possibility. If there were a rule that said "a vote of one fourth shall require a roll call," that rule only gives 1/5 the possibility of ordering a ballot; maybe when the stating vote is taken, less than 1/4 vote in favor of a roll call. Yet, even with this possibility, is there any question that the rule protects a minority of any percentage greater than or equal to 1/4 and that this rule could not be suspended by a vote of less than 3/4 of the voters?

Would you say any number greater than one half as being a majority is a bit strange? I don't.