Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Weldon Merritt

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Weldon Merritt

  • Birthday 03/09/1944

Profile Information

  • Location:
    Spokane, Washington

Recent Profile Visitors

1,718 profile views
  1. And even with an odd number of members, a tie is still possible. A member might be absent, or abstain.
  2. Looks that way to me. Of course, Comgress is free to ignore the new dates and stick with the original ones. Or select other dates of their own choosing. Or drop the whole idea.
  3. I think you probably mean that the ED had no luck. But the fact that the ED is still trying to carry out the intent of the original motion does not necessarilly render the later one out of order. Since congress has not yet adopted anything, I see no reason the assembly could not legitimately adopt a motion to change the dates.
  4. Most of the regulars on this forum would agree that you would be better off simply eliminating the Past President position. One of our former regulars, John Stackpole (now deceased), had an excellet response to the notion of giving the Immediate Past President any official psotion. Here is what he had to say on the subject:
  5. I concur with Mr. Katz, and add that any "contrary provision" must specifically apply to the president. A provision such as "vacancies in all offices shall be filled by [specified process]" won't do it. It would have to say something like "vacancies in any office, including that of president, shall be filled by [specified process]."
  6. You write the minutes to reflect what occured at the meeting. The member's belated change of heart has no bearing on the minutes. It is too late in any event for the member to change his vote, although he is free to move at the next meeting to rescind or amend the motion that he now objects to. That assumes, of course, that nothing has yet been done to implement the motion.
  7. Thanks, Mark. Given that language, I fully agree with Dr. Kapur's initial response. While I might have phrased it differently had I been the drafter, the reolution clearly is intended as an amendment to the previous resolution, so there is no problem. And to anticipate another possible question, even if it didn't meet one of the requisite voting thresholds for ASPA (you don't say by what vote it was adopted), it's too late to raise a Point of Order on that issue. It's not one of the listed categories of contiunung breach.
  8. I thought maybe the member was referring to a particular book, but I couldn't find it with my quick search. If there indeed is such a book, then they could adopt it (or any of several other parliamentary authorities) in lieu of RONR. But I agree that whether they should do so is a different question entirely. As an aside, I have heard of several instances where an organization has adopted a different parliamentary authority, and then in some instances where that authority varied from RONR, they wound up using the RONR rule anyway, sometimes apparently without even realizing that there were not following their adopted PA.
  9. It seems to me that the more "common sense" solution is to select a parliamantary authority and adopt it, and then also adopt some special rules of order to vary from the PA if there is a perceived need to do so.
  10. And that's why I said that you're probably right. But people sometimes use inexact langauge to describe what happened, so I thought it worth pointing out the other possibilty.
  11. I think you're probably right. But perhaps not, depending on the wording of the resolution. If the resolution was worded something like, "Resoloved, that the proposed dates for the Deaf History Month be changed to the month of April," then I agree that it effectively was a motion to Amend Something Previoulsy Adopted, and all is well. But if instead it purported to be a brand new main motion with no reference to the previously adopted, and still in force, resolution, then it would seem to be to be null and void unless it was adopted with the requisite vote. Of course, to get a ruling on the issue, I believe a Point of Order will need to be made and ruled on at another convention.
  12. Mr. Mervosh beat me to the punch and said it in fewer words than I was going to use (maybe that's why he beat me), so I will simply concur.
  13. I don't know how "unusual" it would be, but it's certainly a possibility. There may be some members who would prefer that if the main motion is to be amended at all, the wording be that of the secondary amendment, so they would vote for the secondary amendment. Yet they still would prefer that the main motion not be amended at all, so they would vote against the primary motion as amended. And remember that each of the motions is debatable while it is pending, so it also is possible that some members will change their minds as a result of the debate.
  14. I think you're probably right. And if the secondary amendment was a substitute for the primary, it may indeed have seemed like they were voting on the same amendment again.
  • Create New...