Dan Honemann

The statement found on page 443, lines 7-12, tells us what the chair should do if only one candidate is nominated (and the bylaws do not require that a ballot vote be taken), but if an assembly wishes to order that a vote be taken in an election, even although it isn't necessary, no rule in RONR prevents it from doing so. There are often very good reasons for ordering that a vote be taken by ballot, even if there is only one nominee. All this business about the secretary casting a ballot in the assembly's behalf is an anachronism and much ado about nothing. A number of organizations still use this procedure instead of simply declaring a sole nominee elected, and RONR isn't about to stand in their way. The same is not true with respect to the approval of minutes. Although it is not out of order to move that the minutes be approved, no vote of any kind is ever to be taken on approval of the minutes.

No, it would not it be in order for a member to move that the secretary cast the vote of the assembly to approve the minutes.

I think General Robert may have answered some of your questions in Q&A #186 on page 477 of PL. Actually, I suppose I should refer to Q&A Nos 184 through 189 on pages 476-78, since they all appear to relate to this question.

Oh, I think Josh has this right.

In my opinion, a motion to Lay on the Table (like Previous Question) cannot properly be applied to approval of minutes. The assembly may, instead, adopt a motion to dispense with the reading of the minutes (RONR, 11th ed., p. 474, ll. 8-18.).

"A record of the board's proceedings should be kept by the secretary, just as in any other assembly; these minutes are accessible only to the members of the board unless the board grants permission to a member of the society to inspect them, or unless the society by a two-thirds vote (or the vote of a majority of the total membership, or a majority vote if previous notice is given) orders the board's minutes to be produced and read to the society's assembly." RONR, 11th ed., p. 487

Although there may well be a nit to pick in #80 on tinted page 27, it in no way justifies post #26, since nothing on tinted page 27, #80, says that a minority of one third can prevent the adoption of a motion to limit or end debate.

Nothing on tinted page 27, #80, says that a minority of one third can prevent the adoption of a motion to limit or end debate.

Let’s just say that RONR, by observing (on p. 128, ll. 19-24) that the making of a motion to Postpone Indefinitely “enables members who have exhausted their right of debate on the main question to speak further”, neither endorses nor condemns its use for this purpose.

To be precise, it isn't "explicitly a legitimate use of the motion", and it is also incorrect to say, as in post #1, that “to simply get more debate time … is clearly expressed in RONR as being one of the uses of the motion.” RONR merely observes (on p. 128) that the making of this motion "enables members who have exhausted their right of debate on the main question to speak further because, as explained under Standard Characteristic 5, the motion to Postpone Indefinitely, though technically a new question, necessarily involves debate of the main question."

It's an explanation of why there is no subversion (I'm guessing at what is meant by the use of the word in this context).

Technically, the question before the assembly is a different question.

That was just a gentle warning.

Not a good idea -- it will almost certainly be deleted.

That motion is called something else in the Deluxe Edition.

Please stop referring to "executive meetings".

But keep in mind that applicable law (if any) controls if it conflicts with the rules in your bylaws or in RONR. Consult a lawyer.

First for what?

Cheer up, the situation is worse than you think. Based upon my own personal experience, I am convinced that no meetings of any kind other than those held in a single room or area are held “under equivalent conditions of opportunity for simultaneous aural communication among all participants.” Forget about chat rooms. I have recently been involved in a number of telephone conference-call meetings (none involving more than five participants), and not one of them offered an opportunity for aural communication anywhere near to being equivalent to that offered by a meeting held in a single room or area. Be that as it may, in setting forth (on pp. 1-2) the characteristics of a deliberative assembly, RONR is simply defining the kinds of gatherings to which its rules are principally applicable. This doesn’t mean that your chat rooms can’t use any of them. Be our guest!

Well, then let me ask you, what difference does it make whether or not a particular group possesses all of the characteristics listed on pages 1-2), and what do you make of what is said on page 2, lines 19-24?

Any group which "meets in a single room or area" is a group which possesses the characteristic of a group which "meets in a single room or area", so what's the problem? Anyway, why do you ask (that is, what difference does it make whether or not a particular group possesses all of the characteristics listed on pages 1-2), and what do you make of what is said on page 2, lines 19-24?

What, exactly, was the point that was raised, what was the chair's ruling with respect to it, and if it was admitted as legitimate (they seldom are), what was its disposition?