Dan Honemann

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?

As chair of the Nominations Committee you should be doing none of these things.

Well, this is certainly true, but I'm not sure what it is getting at at.

Yeah. I'm pretty quick on the uptake, don't you think?