Daniel H. Honemann

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Daniel H. Honemann

  1. What's the point in simply asking the same question initially raised once again, but in a different fashion? Upping the post count?
  2. I'm fascinated not so much by what is said in the response to Question 51 on page 43 of the latest NP (Vol. 78, No. 4) as I am by what is not said. In its response, the Research Team submits that if, in announcing the result of the vote on a motion requiring a two-thirds vote for its adoption, the chair, after announcing the count (which was 33 in favor and 17 opposed), simply stated "the amendment is adopted" or "the affirmative has it and the motion is adopted", and nothing else, a point of order would have to be raised promptly that a two-thirds vote, and not simply a majority vote, was required to adopt the motion. I agree. But what if the chair, after announcing the count, had declared that "There are two thirds in the affirmative, and the motion is adopted", thus using the standard form for announcing the result of a counted vote on a motion requiring a two-thirds vote for its adoption rather than one for announcing the result of a counted vote on a motion requiring only a majority vote for its adoption? In order to avoid going off on some silly tangent about parliamentary law perhaps requiring rounding to whole numbers in votes of this kind (we've seen posts here in this forum actually suggesting such a thing), I would have preferred it if the vote count in Question 51 had been a bit different (say 32 in favor and 18 opposed), and I would suggest that anyone who wants to pursue this further use a count that precludes this sort of sidetracking. You all can worry about this for awhile. I'm going fishing.
  3. Forever; which, I'm told, is a very long time.
  4. Yes, and as I said in my initial post, I certainly agree with the answer provided in Question 51.
  5. Oh, no, no, no. The okapi rule is obviously, as you say, a rule which cannot be suspended.
  6. Ms.

    If it wasn't included in the 11th edition you might have asked why it was dropped. A list of instances in which ratification is applicable first appeared in the 7th (1970) edition, and has been included in each edition since then.
  7. I think his answer there was to a question regarding the proper application of the relevant rules of order contained in the bylaws, and not a mistake or mistakes of fact. In Q&A 99 on page 449 of PL, we are told that the bylaws provide that they may be amended "by a two-thirds vote of the members present", and that the club accepted the ruling of the chair that a bylaw amendment was adopted by a vote of 12 in favor, 6 opposed, and 2 abstentions. In his response, General Robert tells us not only that the amendment was not adopted, and also that the chair's announcement that it was adopted was null and void. In other words, General Robert tells us, in no uncertain terms, that this rule in the bylaws requiring "a two-thirds vote of the members present" not only means that the vote of two-thirds of the members present is required for adoption (he says the same thing in Q&A 98), but also that such a rule contained in the bylaws cannot be suspended. I suspect that the conventional wisdom today is that a rule in the bylaws specifying the vote required for the adoption of a motion is clearly a rule in the nature of a rule of order, and can be suspended.
  8. "Sufficient unto the day ..." But with respect to the question which was answered in this Q&A, it's interesting to note how far the rule allowing suspension of a rule in the bylaws, provided it is clearly in the nature of a rule of order, has evolved since General Robert's day. I suspect he would have answer the question asked in the NP's Q&A 51 differently (see, for example, Q&A 99 on p. 449 of PL).
  9. And then I usually follow up by noting that there are only a limited number of occasions when it is appropriate for the chair to do so.
  10. Oh, you're right, I'm just being a little fussy about that use of the word "to", and the need to begin main motions of this nature with the words "I move that ..." (instead of with "I move to ..."), just as resolutions are to begin with "Resolved, That ...", (not with "Resolved, To ...").* And I really hadn't intended to mention any of this until prompted by your assertion that, in these cases, "wording is everything". But, if a member, after being recognized by the chair, says "I move to join the ..." or "I move to be a member of the ...", I suppose the assembly will be able to figure out what he means. ---------------------------------- * In this connection, see RONR (11th ed.), page 33, lines 4-14, and pages 104-110.
  11. Well, the Q&A rather artfully avoids the question entirely, which is what I found so fascinating. And the fishing today wasn't all that great. I like it when I run into a nice school of fish, but this one seemed like it must have been a nursery school. The fish were way too small for my liking.
  12. You mean this topic's title offers no clue? Some time spent reviewing this thread might help. Or maybe not.
  13. Well, if you think that this is a case where wording is everything, I suggest you look again at the way in which main motions are to be phrased.
  14. Well, if joining this organization doesn't entail any continuing obligations at all, I don't see why a motion to terminate membership should require anything more than a majority vote. But why not give previous notice anyway. Whatcha got to lose?
  15. Not really, but I should say that I do not think that the fact that the motion to join the XYZ association was adopted by the board (which, I understand, had authority to do so) makes any difference in determining the vote now required to adopt a motion to terminate that membership. I do think that some additional facts might be helpful. For example, does membership in the XYZ association require that something be done from time to time on a continuing basis (payment of dues, for example)? If so, has the satisfaction or performance of any such continuing obligation been regarded as something that the church has already committed itself to do as a result of having adopted the motion to join, or have one or more additional motions requiring satisfaction of any such obligation been made and adopted? I suspect that the latter may be the case.
  16. I'd find it odd if the rules didn't stop a temporary majority, when no previous notice has been given, from rescinding or changing something previously adopted at an earlier session.
  17. No, the question, as Tom Coronite indicated, is whether or not the motion which was adopted ("to join the XYZ association.") has been fully executed, so that a motion "to terminate membership in the XYZ association" does not conflict with any adopted motion having continuing force and effect. I think it's an interesting question.
  18. It's always a good idea to agree with George when he agrees with me.
  19. We are provided with only portions of two sentences from this organization's bylaws, reading as follows: "...the First monthly business meeting shall be held on the first Tuesday of the month. The second monthly meeting shall be held on the third Tuesday of the month..." Now it seems absurd to me to say that these bylaws, although referring to a First monthly business meeting, do not intend to indicate that there is to be a second one, and in fact, they say there is to be a second one. Perhaps there is something else somewhere in the bylaws which contradicts the plain meaning of what has been quoted, but we haven't been informed of it, and it doesn't surprise me in the least that, as the OP initially told us, the second monthly meeting has traditionally been a business meeting. Based solely upon what has been posted, I think the obvious answer to the question initially asked, which was "can we pass a standing rule to specify that the second monthly meeting be a non-business meeting?" is a resounding "no, you can't."
  20. In my opinion, your first sentence is an incorrect statement of fact.
  21. As previously noted, you will find the "rules for changing delegate counts" (as you have put it) on page 617 of RONR (11th ed.), but it appears that your Caucus follows its own set of rules in many respects, and not those found in RONR, since virtually nothing you describe in your initial paragraph is in accordance with Robert's Rules. So I'm afraid you're on your own.
  22. The notion that there is some difference between the business which may be conducted during the meeting to be held on the first Tuesday of the month and the one to be held on the third Tuesday of the month is simply absurd.
  23. "A special (select, or ad hoc) committee is a committee appointed, as the need arises, to carry out a specified task, at the completion of which—that is, on presentation of its final report to the assembly—it automatically ceases to exist." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 492)
  24. Another alternative, if the member is in favor of the main motion as amended, would be to move that the question be considered informally, which will require only a majority vote for its adoption.
  25. You will find information relating to contesting the announced result of an election on pages 444-446 in RONR (11th ed.).