Weldon Merritt

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.

So far as RONR is concerned, no. But your use of "publicly noticed" leads me to think you may be talking about a governmental entity subject to am "open meetings" law. If so, the answer will be found in the law, and not in RONR.

No. Once the motion has been placed before the assembly, the maker has no more control over it than any other member (with the sole exception of being able to ask permission to withdraw it, which the assembly is under no obligation to grant).

No.

If the board members are also members of the assembly (as I understand to be the case), then yes, they can participate as fully as any other regular member.

What do you mean that your bylaws "no longer require [you] to follow parliamentary procedure"? I seriously doubt that your bylaws say anything like, "this organization is not required to follow parliamentary procedure." If you simply mean that your bylaws no longer specify a parliamentary authority, that certainly does not mean that you are not required to follow parliamentary procedure. "A deliberative assembly that has not adopted any rules is commonly understood to hold itself bound by the rules and customs of the general parliamentary law—or common parliamentary law ...—to the extent that there is agreement in the meeting body as to what these rules and practices are." RONR (12th ed.) 1:5.

I concur with with Guest Puzzling and Richard Brown that having an official position for the IPP is a bad idea. The last Dr. John Stackpole, who was one of the most prolific posters here before his death, had a great list of reason why it's a bad idea. In Dr. Stackpole's words: Unless you can guarantee that none of the eventualities listed by Dr. Stackpole will never occur (which, of course, no one can), I strongly recommend that you remove that position from the board at the earliest opportunity.

It's not completely clear to me either, but I think Guest Puzzling may be wondering if there is a way to force a ballot vote even if there is only one nominee and the bylaws allow for acclamation in that circumstance. The answer is "Yes," by nominating someone else (as noted by Richard Brown).

Certainly you can. But that doesn't mean that the member has to comply. Resignation is a voluntary action, and the member is free to ignore your petition.

You can't find anything in RONR because there is no such rule in RONR. Any such rule, if it exists, would have to be in your church's bylaws. You might ask the person who told you this to show you the rule. If they can't, then it probably doesn't exist.