Weldon Merritt

Certainly not I! I specifically said that "the committee finishe[d] its assigned task early and [the committee] would like to report at an earlier meeting." (Emphasis added.) I said nothing about some random committee member attempting to make an unauthorized report. My question was how may the committee legitimately do that. And that question was answered to my satisfaction many answers ago. Frankly, I am surprised that the issue continues to generate asp much traffic.

That may be what the chair is thinking of (and may, in fact, be a requirement for this board). But if so, the chair is still wrong, as four is not a majority of eight.

I would be more inclined to accept that sort of rule if the rule specifically said so. I have seen some that do not. Tortorice, specifically, does not. So if there is no applicable statue saying so, and the organization's bylaws also do not, then indeed a decision might be made by fewer than a majority of the number required for a quorum.

There's nothing to "handle"; the motion was validly adopted. Any point of order related to the improper making of the motion would have to have been raised at the time of the breach. Once the motion was adopted (and arguably, once debate started), it was too late to raise a point of order. NOTE: This assume that all those who voted were entitled to do so. If anyone not entitled to vote did vote, and if there were enough invalid votes to have affected the result, a point of order could be raised at any time. But based on your facts, that does not seem to be the case here.

Yes, that is correct.

No. Blank ballots are abstentions, and do not count toward the total votes cast.

I not only have read it, I have written a critical review of it for publication by Jurassic Parliament. I believe the publication will occur next month.

The answer to this questions, in any context, is that all members present when the vote is taken, and who are not under disciplinary suspension, are allowed to vote.

Amendments become effective immediately upon adoption, unless the motion to adopt then includes a proviso specifying a later time..

No. The proper procedure under RONR is for you to make the motion, another member to second it, then the chair calls for debate, at which time you have the right to debate first. See RONR (12the ed.) 4:2.

If you don't want him to be elected, nominate and vote for someone else. If you don't want him even to be eligible, you will need to get the bylaws amended.

That was perfectly appropriate. The parliamentarians is flat out wrong, unless your organization has its own customized rule that wouls support the parliamentarian's opinion (which seems pretty unlikely).

You say that you are "a member." Do you mean you are a member of the committee, or a member of the larger organization who is making a report to the committee? If the former, then the answer to you question is "no, it is not against the rules." But it the latter, then a member of the committee should make the appropriate motion.

I never said that was the purpose of the motion; just its effect. But even if that were the purpose, what is your basis for saying they can't do it?

But how can it be improper when 9:10 specifically says the assembly can do it?

Indeed, I do. I was pretty sure of the answer in the first place, but wanted to see if I was on the right track.

J.J. and Dr. Kapur have given you the correct answers. The quote from Alice Sturgis is irrelevant; your parliamentary authority is RONR, not Sturgis.

For whatever it is worth, the motion was not the subsidiary motion to commit, but a main motion for the committee to consider a particular matter and make a recommendation. And the instruction was "to report at the February meeting." (I don't think either fact will change the answers that have been given, but I just want to make the situation clear in case anyone is unclear.)

OK; I'll buy that. (It's pretty much what I was thinking anyway.) But what about my other question? I assume the assembly could amend the original motion to allow the committee to report earlier. But could the earlier reporting date be set for the same meeting at which the amendment is adopted? Or would that violate the rights of absentees who were not expecting the committee to report until later?

Suppose a special committee is created for a specified task, and ordered to present its report at a specific meeting. (Not by the specified meeting, but at the specified meeting.) Then the committee finishes its assigned task early and would like to report at an earlier meeting. May the committee simply notify the chair that it is ready to report, and be allowed to do so without further action by the assembly, or must the assembly first amend the motion creating the committee to specify the earlier reporting date? And if the latter, may the motion to amend be adopted and and the committee report given at the same meeting, or must the motion to amend be adopted at one meeting and the report be given at a later meeting? On the one hand, it seems like the committee should be able to report earlier than specified. But on the other hand, maybe the fact that the committee was ordered to report at a specified meeting (instead of by that meeting) creates an expectation that any assembly members who are interested in the report need not attend earlier meetings, so that presenting the report earlier might potentially violate absentee rights.

That seems abundantly clear.

I concur with Mr. Mervosh, who beat me to the punch as I was about to post much the same advice.

Couldn't any such rule still be suspended by a two-thirds vote? Grated, the assembly may be less likely to suspend the rule and order the previous question that they would be to order the previous question if there is no rule against doing so. But I believe they could do it.

"The name of the maker of a main motion should be entered in the minutes, but the name of the seconder should not be entered unless ordered by the assembly." RONR (12th ed.) 48:5(1).

RONR has nothing to say about the position, so your answers will have to come from interpretation of your bylaws. But the best suggestion I can give you is to amend the bylaws and get the IPP off the board and the EC. Most frequent participants on this forum agree that giving the IPP any official position in the bylaws is a bad idea. The best list of reason I have seen for not doing so was frequently posted by the late Dr. John Stackpole: