Weldon Merritt

While I agree in general with my colleagues (a deadline is a deadline), I am puzzled by one aspect of your question. You first say that there was "a postmark deadline of April 8" then you say the ballots in question "were received on April 9." If they were received on April 9, they must have been postmarked by April 8, and probably earlier. (The USPS is pretty good, but I don't think they can deleive mail the same day it is postmarked.) So how did the tellers determine that the five vallots were untimely?

Wow, Mark. You resurrected an oldie but goodie! Having been a member of eNAP for well over ten years, during which time we have managed to conduct business quite well using a chat room format, I still am not convinced that "aural" communication truly is essential to the deliberative process. Interestugly, however, it seems that eNAP may be about to conisder a different platform which will include aural communication. Unfortuanetly, that may make it impossible for deaf members to participate, unless we can figure out a way to make it work for them.

And even with an odd number of members, a tie is still possible. A member might be absent, or abstain.

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.

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.

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:

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]."

No.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

No, the primary amendment, as amended by the secondary amendment, is then pending. Even if the secondary amendment is a complete substitute for the primary amendment, the primary amendment (as amended) remains pending No, it simply amends the primary amendment, which then must be voted on. Then after that, the main motion (as amended if applicable) is voted on. The sequence (omitting some of teh detail) is: Main motion moved Primary amendmenmt moved Secondary amendment moved Secondary amendment voted on Primary amendment (as amended, if the secondary amendment was adopted) voted on Main motion (as amended, if the primary amendment was adopted) voted on

That may be an option, as well. That doesn't seem to be contemplated by RONR, but it seems reasonable Yes, that's a possibility, too.

What should have happened is that the board should have authorized a committee to appove the final minutes. But since that didn't happen, there might still be a way to do it. You say "the company is merging with another." Has the merger actually occured, or is it still in progress. I.e., does the old company still exist as an entity until some specified date? If the old company does still exist in some form while the merger is underway, then its board also still exists. So my next question is, do the bylaws provide for special meetings of the board? If so, and if there is time before the merger is complete, I would suggest calling a special meeting for the purpose of approving the minutes of the final regular meeting and the (very brief) bylaws of the special meeting. If the answer to either or both of my questions is "no," then I don't see any parliamentary way for the final minutes to be approved. But maybe some of my colleagues will have other ideas.

We don't give legal advice here, but if you mean was it parliamentarialy proper, we can't answer that either without knowing more details. Certainly a main motion can be amended, which could include adding something to the motion. But the amendment must be germane. That is, it must relate in some way to the original motion. Whether a motion is germane sometimes is a judgment call, but if the chair is in doubt, the assembly can decide my majority vote. (I see that Josh Martin has replied while I was typing, and I think we are sayimg essentially the same thing.)

Agreeing with my colleagues, I will just add that you could amend the bylaws either to eliminate whatever makes this person ineligible, or to inlcude some sort of waiver process (pershaps requiring something more than a majority vote). But either way, as Dr. Kapur said, the change will remain part of the bylaws until you amend them again to change them back.

O, en otras palaabras: Los moderadores no están equipados para tratar conversaciones en otros idiomas además del inglés y, como consecuencia, se solicita a los carteles que publiquen todos los mensajes en inglés solamente. Los mensajes publicados en otro idioma que no sea inglés se eliminarán en breve.

👍

Estoy de acuerdo con J.J.