Shmuel Gerber

The question was: In our organization the Executive Board consists of the President, Immediate Past President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer, and three at-large members. If a newly elected president is elected in November of 2023, takes office in January 2024 but resigns in March of the same year, would he be considered the Immediate Past President when considering who should be considered the Immediate Past President on the Board?

Oh, I see. So the (incorrect) hypothesis of the question was that perhaps an adjourned meeting is treated as though it is being held on the same day as the original meeting whose business it is a continuation of. Thanks for explaining.

Nope. I don't understand the question and I have no idea what assumption is being made.

Or actually the answer is that it is a false choice. The motion can be made on the next succeeding day within the session, which does not have to be the next day on the calendar, and the session itself can be extended by fixing the time for an adjourned meeting.

The question is quite unclear (at least it is to me), because I would think the answer is the former. "The next succeeding day within the same session on which a business meeting is held" is relative to the day on which the original vote was taken. As long as no meetings of the same session have been scheduled for other days, then it will only be possible to make a motion to Reconsider on the same day the original vote was taken. But if the assembly then fixes an adjourned meeting of the same session to be held on another day, the time limit for making a motion to reconsider is "extended" to whenever that adjourned meeting (or the first day of it) is held, regardless of the number of calendar days involved.

It seems to me that publication of the minutes of the business transacted at a special meeting is certainly related to the business transacted at the special meeting. There is no requirement of previous notice of particular motions at a special meeting.

I think the prior reasoning went something like this: My job is to vote, and if I'm in the room but not doing my job am I really present?

I think he is referring to the former practice wherein a member who did not respond to call of the roll was not counted as being present for purposes of determining a quorum.

As wood I.

I can't imagine why anyone thought the latter half of this sentence necessary or useful.

If the debate is in the form of remarks not related to any pending motion, then yes you can rule such remarks out of order. You do not have the right to end the debate on a pending motion, nor to refuse recognition to a member attempting to make a motion.

It can be said to apply to all pending questions, because when the allotted time for consideration of the main motion expires, all pending questions will be put to a vote without further debate or amendment. (15:12) Is there some other example of how the last sentence of 15:11 would apply that you think is more clearly in order?

I think so, although perhaps it could be worded more clearly. The intention is to limit debate on the main motion and all secondary motions (that are pending or may become pending) so that a vote will be taken after no more than 20 minutes of debate.

Well it seems that in this organization everything from voting to quorum to ratification to conflict of interest is defined or handled differently than in RONR, so I'm not sure we can be of much help here.

A quorum is the number of members who must be present at a meeting in order to conduct business. It has nothing to do with the number of members who voted. You seem to be dealing with some sort of online election system with its own rules, so I have no idea what a quorum means in this context.