Weldon Merritt

I agree with Mr. Honemann's disagreement.

Seems pretty explicit to me. And while Dr. Kapur didn't say that Kerr and King is "widely recognized" (just that it is a "parliamentary authority"), I suspect our Canadian friends would disagree with you suggestion that it is not (at least in Canada).

Good point. I missed that.

Yes, if an actual motion is made, it does need a second. But if the chair simply ask for unanimous consent, then neither a formal motion nor a second is needed.

Actually, Richard Nixon was not impeached; he resigned to avoid likely impeachment. The only presidents who have been impeached were Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump (twice), none of whom were subsequently convicted.

OK. So Shmuel, when will it be?

Any clue when?

I concur with Mr. Novosielski and Dr. Kapur. And while your question about "how close" a two-thirds vote needs to be is moot so far as the specific issue you asked about, I will add that a quick way to determine whether a two-thirds vote requirement has been met is to double the negative vote. If the result is equal to or less that the affirmative vote, a two-thirds vote has been achieved.

Wouldn't the president know anyway whether or not he has received a raise?

Not for president, unless the vice president resigns before the vacancy. As I stated in my earlier response, the vice president automatically becomes president in the event of a vacancy in that office. The only exception would be if the bylaws explicitly provide otherwise for the office of president. In this instance, not only do the bylaws not provide otherwise, they explicitly say that the vice president assumes the office of president.

The vice president's unwillingness is immaterial. No only does RONR specify that the vice president becomes president in the event of a vacancy in the office of president, you bylaws do as well. This is automatic and immediate. so the only way for the vice president to avoid becoming president would be to resign the vice presidency before that office becomes vacant. Of course, he also could resign as president after the automatic succession, but he does not then revert to vice president. Instead, he would be out of both positions. I suppose the board could reappoint him as vice president after filling the vacancy on the office of president. But why would you want a vice president who is unwilling to fulfill one of the main duties of that office (to succeed to the presidency in the event of a vacancy)?

I agree. But so far I have seen no evidence that this particular rule was "widely in place" when it was inserted into the second edition. And too the extent that it now is "widely in place," I suspect that's only because so many organizations have adopted RONR (often without being more than vaguely aware of its contents).

I generally am less interested in why a rule was originally adopted than I am in whether it serves any good purpose now. Knowing the original rationale may have a bearing on that issue, but if no one can articulate the reason, then I would question its importance. As to "unforeseen, adverse consequences," I belong to another group that uses a parliamentary authority that does not include the prohibition, and I have seen no evidence of any adverse consequences resulting from the absence of the rule.

I don't know about the general parliamentary law, but I know of several parliamentary authorities that do not contain the prohibition. And I know of no problems resulting from its absence in those authorities.

Actually, I see no great harm in allowing the maker to speak against "his" motion any time, although I have no great objection to a rule that he cannot initially speak against the motion. But I think that he should be allowed to do so after debate by other members, which very well may have persuaded him that the motion should be defeated. Yes, he can request permission to withdraw it. But that may not always be as effective as being able to directly speak against the motion.

I see that my recollection of Mr. Honemann's opinion was accurate. But I prefer Mr. Gerber's view on the reasonableness of a contrary view. And I reiterate my wish that the the authors would issue an Official Interpretation one way or the other.

So do I. But I (and I think many of not most of us on this forum) have long understood the authors' interpretation to be the contrary. It might be helpful if an Official Interpretation could be issued to clarify the issue. For whatever it may be worth (possibly very little), I actually think a member should be allowed to speak against a motion he has made if he changes his mind after hearing other members' debate, even if the motion has not been amended; but I can see a better rationale for not allowing him to do so when the motion has not been amended.

Neither would I, but I have long understood that the prohibition still applies after the motion has been amended (even adversely to the intent of the original mover). While I don't believe that is addressed by any of the Official Interpretations, I certainly have been under the impression that at least one of the authors (specifically, Mr. Honemann) held that view. Do I sense some disagreement among the A-team?

Richard, I would be interested in knowing what advantages you see to including the name of the maker, and why you think they outweigh any disadvantages.

This is one of the reasons that I don't see the logic of requiring that the minutes include the name of the maker of the original motion be included. I know that's the rule. I just find no logical reason for it, especially when elsewhere we are told that once the motion has been stated by the chair, it belongs to the assembly, not the maker.

🙂

I'm disappointed! It doesn't list the order of precedence of the local dog catcher. 😀

For whatever it may be worth, I think that none of the examples in that article are "intrinsically irrelevant negative votes," as the term is used in RONR. Watch for the next issue in which, I hope, my rebuttal will be published.

Certainly looks like it to me, too.

I was about to respond when Dr. Kapur beat me to the punch. I can't improve on his answer, so I will simply concur.