Shmuel Gerber

Administrators
  • Content count

    2,049
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Shmuel Gerber

  1. That's an interesting assertion, but wouldn't that also mean that the quorum at a given time (in an assembly subject to such a law) depends on what motion is pending? The idea of a membership that fluctuates based on what the pending question is isn't very amenable to me. And I don't see enough support for it in RONR to necessarily agree that it is correct, especially since the authors keep tinkering around with the definition of "quorum" from edition to edition. ☺️
  2. As long as you can still spell asma, you're probably alright.
  3. And he (or she) is entitled to attend the meeting, as well, and should definitely do that while presiding. ?
  4. I'm just waiting until someone tells me what to delete, 'cause I have no intention of reading this stuff. :-)
  5. Actually, it's not the vote for reconsideration that is called up, but only the motion to Reconsider. When the motion to Reconsider is called up, the chair states the question on it immediately, and it is open to debate (if debatable) and a vote. Only when the motion to Reconsider is adopted (if it is adopted) is the original motion then reconsidered. See RONR, 11th ed., pp. 316-317: "c) The making of this motion [to Reconsider] has a higher rank than its consideration; that is, the motion can be made and seconded at times when it is not in order for it to come before the assembly for debate or vote. In such a case it can be taken up later, even after it would be too late to move it in the first place. If the motion to Reconsider is introduced at a time when it cannot be taken up, the chair does not state the question on it as pending, but asks the secretary to record the motion as made and seconded. This temporarily suspends any action growing out of the vote it is proposed to reconsider. While a motion to reconsider the vote on a main motion has this status, a member can bring the motion before the assembly at any time when its consideration is in order. When he does this, he is said to call up the motion to Reconsider." And p. 323, lines 9-20: "If a motion to Reconsider that involves a main motion cannot be taken up when it is made, then . . . To call it up, a member obtains the floor and says, “Mr. President, I call up the motion to reconsider the vote on the motion … [identifying it].” No second is necessary, since the motion to Reconsider was seconded at the time it was made. When this motion is called up, the chair immediately states the question on it as pending (see Form and Example)." And the example on p. 331, lines 16-33: "If it is not in order to take up the motion to Reconsider when it is moved, the chair says instead: << CHAIR: It is moved and seconded to reconsider the vote on the resolution relating to ... The Secretary will make a note of it. >> He then continues with the pending business. When it is in order to call up the motion to Reconsider and a member wishes to do so, the member rises and addresses the chair: << MEMBER A (obtaining the floor): I call up the motion to reconsider the vote [or "votes"] on ... >> The chair proceeds: << CHAIR: The motion to reconsider the vote [or "votes"] on ... is called up. The question is on the motion to reconsider ... [etc.]. >>"
  6. Nobody can "take" the remainder of another board member's term. Whoever has the power to make replacement appointments can accept the resignation(s) and then appoint whoever they want to.
  7. You seem to be ignoring what RONR says about this on page 89, lines 26-30: "Some societies have frequent meetings for social or cultural purposes at which business may be transacted, and also hold a session every month or quarter especially for business. In such societies, the term regular meeting applies particularly to the regular business session."
  8. Of course. And in some organizations, there is a monthly business meeting every week.
  9. Richard, I agree with you. While what you've suggested is not the only solution, I think it is clearly the best, and probably the only good one, among those that have been suggested so far. Although renumbering an article is not necessarily considered an amendment to that article, I don't see any way around the fact that an amendment to the article that refers to those numbers would be an amendment. And to renumber the articles without amending the article that refers to them by number would be utterly confusing.
  10. What works for IV (IV-A) works for 9 (9A). And 8. And 23. And other numbers, etc.
  11. In this case, I thought the objective was to decide *all* the pending questions without a direct vote on *any* of them.
  12. You're supposed to get the little fish to snitch on the location of the big fish in exchange for their own release. (Or at least I'm told that's how they do it on the Canarsie piers.)
  13. I don't think that the publication of this Q&A in the National Parliamentarian has changed or will change anyone's opinion who had an opinion on your question, so I hope your other fishing expedition proved more bountiful than this one has done so far. Edited to add: Please excuse my not-quite-American grammar; I think I've been watching too many episodes of "Elementary".
  14. I don't see why not. ?
  15. What do you mean by "then"?
  16. They must have meant "directing the minuets." It's a common typo around here.
  17. "Ethical" has to do with ethics, while "moral" has to do with mores. Duh!
  18. I'm sure that some people have found such summaries useful during meetings. However, it's difficult to get them exactly right. This one isn't terrible, but as Mr. Goldsworthy points out, it is missing "Discharge a Committee," and I also agree with him that the "10 tricks" list is not appropriate for a tip sheet about parliamentary procedure. There are some other idiosyncrasies, too: "WIFLE" is not a standard part of the standard order of business, although RONR does note that some organizations have an optional heading for Good of the Order, General Good and Welfare, or Open Forum. The left column correctly notes that there are differing requirements for suspending the rules, depending on whether a special rule of order or a standing rule is involved, but the right-hand column shows simply "2/3." The 13 ranked motions do not indicate the vote required for their adoption. And the "bring-back" motions indicate neither the vote required nor whether they are debatable. "Division of the the Assembly" does not mean calling for a counted vote; it means calling for a rising vote, and it can be demanded by any member. A request for a counted vote can be granted by the chair, but it requires a majority vote for the assembly to order it if the chair doesn't want to.
  19. Yes, to lost motions -- and also killed motions (via Postpone Indefinitely or Objection to Consideration), but not motions that are withdrawn or that die for lack of being seconded.
  20. And when they're done voting and the motion to Suspend the Rules is adopted, some nitpicker will probably want to know when the votes will be taken on all the motions that were pending when this incidental motion was introduced. ?
  21. How about: I move to suspend the rules and agree to the adoption of the pending main motion as it would read if all pending amendments were adopted.
  22. Or maximum or minimum.
  23. Take it from the table, and you'll find out soon enough. ?
  24. Well, if the provision is indeed applicable to those who have already been serving in office for a period of time, then it would seem that whoever is elected president and already holds another office is sunk either way -- he will have to abandon one office or the other, thereby becoming ineligible for both.
  25. By that standard, all rules relating to the election of officers could be suspended, which is obviously not the case. A rule that makes a candidate ineligible for election by write-in is not merely a rule of order, although it might not be very effective in substance unless combined with a limitation on the ability to reopen nominations.