Gary Novosielski

I counted the leftmost column as the zeroth column, making the first column the first column after the zeroth column. But I still don't know what the -- mark means.

Yeah, that thingamajig, something like a dash, is not explained in the Key to Classification, which I presume means that nominations have no class, which explains a lot now that I think about it. In any case it only deepens that mystery of whether they are motions or not. I suspect the reason it was stuck in at #53 is that the integer 53 is the smallest prime number that does not divide the order of any sporadic finite group. Who knows?

Blissful. 😁

At least you know how much credence to give to any future pronouncements from this fount of wisdom.

Yes, if a recommendation/motion comes out of a committee of more than one member, no second is required. However I think that a slate of officers list of nominees would be a report of the committee but not necessarily a motion.

It's worth mentioning that parliamentarians do not issue rulings. Parliamentarians advise the chair, and the chair makes rulings (which may, in whole or in part, disagree with that advice). And rulings of the chair are subject to Appeal.

There's no rule on the subject in RONR. I've seen it done in order of nomination, in alphabetical order, and by a random drawing. If you have a preference, make a motion to that effect.

If a chapter is delegating someone to represent then in a convention of the larger organization, they have the right to instruct their delegate on how to vote on particular items, or they may decide not to instruct the delegate.

That may be, but Committee of the Whole (in classic or alternative forms) requires only a majority vote. If only there were a way to assess support for one of the two. Perhaps a straw poll of some sort. 🤪

Yes, I'm sure they predate the US Army itself, for that matter, which makes it difficult to believe that the terms are unrelated to their parliamentary usage.

Fair enough.

Well, they certainly do not accomplish the same things, and are nothing even close to synonymous with their military namesakes. But it's hard to believe that an General officer in the Army would simply choose these labels by sheer coincidence.

Or you could follow the instruction in RONR for what to do, i.e. Committee of the Whole. Just sayin'.

It's not ambiguous if it results in the meeting being adjourned.

There's no need to round at all. Although the threshold may be fractional, the actual number of votes will not be. Presuming all members vote, the Yes votes will either be less than 5.333... or greater. Five votes will not pass the motion, and six will.

No. A tie vote simply defeats the motion like any other vote that's less than a majority. If the president does not usually vote, then that rule is suspended when one more vote would make a difference, but the president can vote to create a tie, break a tie, achieve 2/3, deny 2/3, or any other situation where that one vote would matter, or may elect not to vote. But if the vote was by ballot, the president votes along with everyone else. If the president already voted, and a tie was created, then we might assume that the president was against the motion and voted to create a tie, or that the motion was already failing, and the president's vote didn't actually make a difference.

Much easier in fact. In organizations that direct the Secretary to cast a single vote, once that's done, it's often the end of it. The Secretary never does cast such a ballot. It has been so long since this method was appropriately used, nobody remembers that the Secretary is supposed to do as directed. Here's what PL actually says:

I've heard a chair say once, in response to, "I would like to move that..." "Certainly, go right ahead."

Then the chair should have named F first. A five person committee cannot properly contain six people.

I would seek to know who "stated" this and under what authority. Normally, the AGM is the highest of the assemblies in an organization, and is permitted to do whatever the applicable rules allow.

I'm beginning to lean away from the opinion that my former opinion might have been been leaning toward. I know that the a committee may comprise members of the organization as well as non-members, subject to approval by the assembly. But by naming people to a committee, whether they are members of the society or not, they all become members of the committee. I think the same would apply to a person designated as chairman. And my opinion is strengthened by reading between the lines of RONR 13:17.

I'm not certain that the events as you describe them constitute a recommendation to the general membership. A motion was made to do so, but it was defeated. You don't say that any action was taken to adopt the president's opinion that the member should be allowed to address the general meeting, nor does such a recommendation seem appropriate. The EC should not typically be telling a superior body who is allowed to address them. Since the EC apparently took no affirmative vote on either of these things, it might be best for them to simply step out of the matter. If someone wants to approve a refund for this member, let them do it under New Business and leave the EC out of it. (My 2¢, worth every penny.)

If it's seconded and stated by the chair, then it's close enough for folk music.

I'll be interested to see if my supposition proves to be unfounded. 🙂

Not a terrible screwup though. The General might well approve. After all, he did not get all this General Order and Special Order stuff by licking it off the rocks.