Shmuel Gerber

I'm curious why you think a "(sic)" is warranted here.

Well, Don and anyone else can complain as little or as much as they want, but the result still stands.

See definition 2a at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rescind rescind. transitive verb: take back, cancel

RONR doesn't speak of "bundling" motions, but any time a member attempts to move the adoption of several motions on different subjects at the same time, this can be done only if no member objects.

I'm not familiar with the interface for other users, but moderators have to check a box to turn on the notice that a post has been edited. Moderators can also see the notice that a post has been edited regardless of whether that checkbox has been turned on.

Nothing in this description resembles how business is conducted under Robert's Rules of Order. I think your guess as to what happens next, according to the way this board handles its business, is as good as ours, if not better.

It's always confounding when the book gets things wrong. 🙂

I don't see the problem with allowing a motion containing no rational proposition to be declared void at any time, since the motion contains no rational proposition. By definition, it makes no difference whether or not it remains in force.

I said, "If the motion truly contains no rational proposition, …"

In the common parliamentary law as handed down from the ancient wise men, I believe there is a well-honed distinction between stupid and absurd. 🙂

It does not seem to me that it does. I think we've discussed this recently in the forum. I don't like to disagree with Mr Honemann, but in this case I agree with Mr Martin's earlier response. I think that recesses and adjournments should not be considered special orders. But that is an academic question and is confounded by what is said in 41:59. For purposes of this topic, however, I think it is sufficient to say that the most reasonable interpretation of the statement in 41:61 that "At a session that already has an order of business, an agenda can be adopted by a majority vote only if it does not create any special orders and does not conflict with the existing order of business; otherwise, a two-thirds vote is required.", the only possible special orders referred to are those that would otherwise require a 2/3 vote to create.

Don't you think it is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that a motion must contain a rational proposition? (If it's not, it should be.)

You could move to amend the adopted motion by specifying language to clarify it, or you could move to rescind the motion altogether. Such motions are governed by the rules for the motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted. Any member can move such a motion, regardless of how he voted on the original motion. If the motion truly contains no rational proposition, you could try to raise a point of order to that effect. But, as you say, a majority thought the motion was good enough, so that does not seem like a successful route.

They are definitely not OK as is.

The premise was that the motion should specifically state that the member's rights are suspended "until reinstated by the membership". Under such a condition, I don't see how a motion to reinstate the membership can be viewed as rescinding the motion to suspend membership until it is reinstated. The previous decision is not being changed at all.

So then a motion to reinstate would not be amending something previously adopted.

I was actually thinking about the sentence "The Question and Answer Forums are provided to allow an open exchange of views relevant to specific questions of parliamentary procedure under Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised." But if we can get some converts from other parliamentary authorities, no harm done.

The rule in RONR 48:5 is that "The name of the maker of a main motion should be entered in the minutes…" "Owner of Unit 112" is probably not anyone's name. But I will concede that nothing in RONR says you should be too fussed if the maker of a motion is not identified by name in the minutes.

The book is being misquoted. What is says is "8. A negative vote on these motions can be reconsidered, but not an affirmative vote." The words "these motions" refers to the head of the paragraph, which says, "The motions to Rescind and to Amend Something Previously Adopted:"

See https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/38364-welcome-to-the-official-ronr-q-a-forums/

Not that I can recall. 🙂 Why does this matter?

"Custom 2:25 In some organizations, a particular practice may sometimes come to be followed as a matter of established custom so that it is treated practically as if it were prescribed by a rule. If there is no contrary provision in the parliamentary authority or written rules of the organization, such an established custom is adhered to unless the assembly, by a majority vote, agrees in a particular instance to do otherwise. However, if a customary practice is or becomes in conflict with the parliamentary authority or any written rule, and a Point of Order citing the conflict is raised at any time, the custom falls to the ground, and the conflicting provision in the parliamentary authority or written rule must thereafter be complied with. If it is then desired to follow the former practice, a special rule of order (or, in appropriate circumstances, a standing rule or a bylaw provision) can be added or amended to incorporate it."

This seems to me very similar, or maybe even identical, to reports of officers, boards, and committees.

I see now that you put a question in the title of the topic. The president can give a report that includes recommendations, although it is best practice for another member to move their implementation. As far as taking up a question before its appointed time, I would want to know how it came to appear under New Business to begin with. But in any case, once the question has been decided it is too late to raise a point of order about these irregularities.

Do you have a question?