Weldon Merritt

I have a question about the Previous Question that doesn’t seem to be directly answered by RONR. Assume a Main Motion and a motion to Limit or Extend Limits of Debate, are pending. Then an order for the Previous Question on all pending motions is adopted. Although RONR does not say so, it seems to me that it would make no sense to vote on Limit or Extend, and that vote should be omitted. Why? Because even if Limit or Extend is adopted, once the MM is either adopted or defeated, either way, there will be noting left for Limit or Extend to apply to. The same logic would apply if one or more other subsidiary motions are included in the series between Limit or Extend and the MM. Assume that Postpone Definitely, Commit, and Postpone Indefinitely are all pending in the series. (Unlikely, perhaps, but not impossible; so bear with me). If Postpone Definitely is defeated, you keep going. If it is adopted, the MM and adhering motions are postponed to the specified time. But when the motions come back at the specified time, Limit or Extend would be exhausted (RONR 14:19), and its adoption would have been pointless. If PD is not adopted, then Commit would be voted on next. If defeated, votes on the series will continue. And if Commit is adopted, the MM would go to the committee, and when the committee reports, Limit or Extend would be exhausted. (RONR 13:21) So again, the vote on Limit or Extend would have been pointless. If Commit is defeated, the assembly next would vote on Postpone Indefinitely. If that motion is defeated, the assembly then votes on the MM. And if PI is adopted, the MM goes away and there is nothing left for Limit or Extend to apply to. So it seems to me that any time the Previous Question is ordered on a series that includes both Limit or Extend Limit of Debate and the Main Motion, voting on Limit or Extend would be pointless and should be skipped. Do you agree or am I missing something?

RONR 35:13 seems to refer only to expunging an entre motion. and does not explicitly address expunging only a portion of a motion. Nevertheless, I think it should be permissible. If anyone disagrees, I would be very interested in the logic (other than "because the rule says so.")

More specifically, RONR provides that the chair may vote whenever their vote would make a difference in the outcome. (This applies to whoever in in the chair at the time, who might or might not be the president on any particular occasion.)

Yes, and that would be a good argument to use in debate against the motion. But it could be that the organization wants to deliberately violate the law, inviting enforcement action to challenge the constitutionality of the law.

I agree. There seems to be a widespread assumption that having an odd number of members will preclude a tie. But that's not necessarily so. Even with an odd number of members, a tie could result if a member is absent or abstains.

Mr. Brown beat me to the punch, so I will simply agree with his response. I will just add that if your bylaws do not define a quorum, by default under RONR it is a majority of thr member. But again that's living, breathing members; it does not include vacant positions.

Thank you for that information. I was not aware of that usage, so I'll try to keep it in mind. But I agree that it is best, whenever possible, to ask the person's preference and use that.

And could be appointed to a position the same as any other member could be. The important thing, in the opinion of must of he regulars here, is that it not be automatic.

I was about to write a response when I saw that Mr. Martin had responded. Since his response says pretty much what I would have said, I will just concur.

The chair may adjourn a meeting without a motions under three circumstances: 1. "If an hour for adjourning a meeting within a convention or other session of more than one meeting has been scheduled—either in an agenda or program or by the adoption of a motion setting a time—no motion to adjourn is necessary when that hour arrives. The chair simply announces the fact and declares the meeting adjourned ...." RONR 21:14. 2. "When it appears that there is no further business in a meeting of an ordinary local society that normally goes through a complete order of business ... at each regular meeting .., the chair, instead of waiting or calling for a motion to adjourn, can ask, 'Is there any further business?' If there is no response, the chair can then say, 'Since there is no further business, the meeting is adjourned.'" RONR 21:15. 3. "In the event of fire, riot, or other extreme emergency, if the chair believes taking time for a vote on adjourning would be dangerous to those present, he should declare the meeting adjourned—to a suitable time and place for an adjourned meeting (if he is able), or to meet at the call of the chair." RONR 8:10. In any of those circumstances, the chair should do it from the podium. But I would be hard pressed to say it is invalid if done for some other location (e.., as he chair is heading for the door). At the very least, someone would need to raise a Point of Order. And the only circumstance where that might be warranted would be the first one. there, if there is still business that the assembly wants to conduct, the assembly would have to adopt a motion to set aside the orders of the day.

So far as RONR is concerned, "swearing in" (or the absence thereof) has no bearing on an officer's eligibility to serve. It is purely symbolic.

Ideally, the secretary who took the minutes should sign them as the secretary (which she was at the time they were taken), and you should offer your corrections at the meeting where they are up for approval. Then once they are approved (as submitted or as corrected), you should date and initial them as the current secretary. But if the previoud secretary did not sign them, and either cannot or will not sign them now, I suggest you do as Mr. Brown recommended.

Yes, that's correct. Only if that occurred before the chair moved on to new business. If the chair announced that the motion failed, and no one raised an immediate Point of Order, the char's declaration stands.

Yes, unless your own rules preclude it. Certainly, nothing in RONR would. Of course, if they declined the nomination, they very well might decline the election, too. If so, you have an incomplete election and have to vote again.

Based on those bylaws, and assuming thee is noting on any other section of the bylaws that would change the answer, then I agree with Ms. Percell that write ins are allowed. It would take an explicit prohibition to disallow them.

I agree that you are probably right, but I don't think you can say that for certain in this instance. I have seen bylaws with nominations methods similar to the one described that also take the further step of prohibiting write-in votes. That's why I said that a definitive answer is impossible without reviewing the bylaws.

Impossible to say for sure without reviewing your bylaws. The general rule is that both floor nominations and write ins area allowed unless specifically prohibited by your bylaws. But if the alternate nomination procedure you describe is mandated by your bylaws (is it, or is itt just custom)?, I'm not sure how that would affect the general rule. Thus, the need to see the bylaws.

So would I. That may seem inconsistent with my earlier statement that "I personally feel that it should be used only in rare instances where there is something objectionable about the motion, other than just not being favored by a lot of members," but it really isn't. I would not make the motion due to my personal feeling, nor would I encourage someone to make it. But if I were presiding and someone made it, I would not rule it out of order. I agree that nothing in the RONR text suggests that it is so limited, and in any event, whether something is "strongly undesirable" is very subjective.

Yes, that's true, and I thought about including that as part of my advice. Although I realize it could be used for any main motion, I personally feel that it should be used only in rare instances where there is something objectionable about the motion, other than just not being favored by a lot of members. But that's just my opinion, and I suppose I should have included that option.

Yes, that obviously would preclude its being made again. I assume, however, that you oppose the motion and would like to prevent it from even being made. The short answer is that there are very few options for doing that. Under RONR, a failed motion can be made again (renewed) at any future session, no matter how many times it has been made and defeated before. I suppose that if you can muster enough support, you could adopt a special rule of order specifying that a failed motion cannot be made again until some specified number of meetings has intervened. But be careful what you wish for, as this could backfire. There could very well be a failed motion that you really want to be considered again later. And while to rules could be suspended to allow it notwithstanding the special rule, that would take a two-thirds vote. A better approach, in my opinion, would be for someone who opposes the motion to gain the floor as soon as possible after the motion is made and move the Previous Questions. This requires a second, and a two-thirds vote. But if adopted, then the assembly will vote on the motion with no further debate. If, as you imply, most members oppose the motion, it could be defeated pretty quickly

So far as RONR is concerned, the answer is no, and item does not have to be on the agenda for a motion to be made concerning the item. But it is quite possible that the organizations own rules require it. And if you are talking about some sort of governmental body, there very likely are statutes controlling what matters may be considered by the board

Nor am I. As a practical matter, of course, it is doubtful than anyone would later complain; but still, it's probably better to wait for the official time.

It's ultimately up to your organization to interpret its own bylaws. But IMO, if the bylaws " are silent about ex officio members on the subcommittees," then they are not on the subcommittees.

What do your bylaws say about ex-officio members of a committee?

Good question. I suppose it is possible that the president would not have access to email. But given the widespread availability of internet cafes and such, that seems unlikely.