Gary Novosielski

There are methods available to delay the consideration of a motion if the assembly feels more information is needed. One way is to Postpone the motion to the next meeting; another is to Refer it to a committee. Or it can simply be voted down, and presented again when more supporting information is available. If the assembly chose not to use them, then I don't see any violation of the rules here. Unfortunately, the rules in RONR do not prohibit members from deciding to do inadvisable things.

Oh, absolutely. Any indication that I believe the situation to be other-than-murky, was unintentional.

I think p. 221, l. 5 (item 3.) applies, considered in the light of p. 219, ll.17-20. It is not completely clear to me that a scheduled adjournment is in fact an Order of the Day. We learn on p. 222, l. 22 that an Order of the Day, when proceeded to, is "invariably" a main motion that becomes pending. Yet when the hour of adjournment arrives, a motion to Adjourn does not become the pending question; adjournment is simply announced by the chair. Still, if the assembly wishes then to extend the meeting, it does so by Setting Aside the Orders of the Day. So, is an adjournment with a fixed time an Order of the Day, or not? Is it in the nature of a Special Order? A General Order that has been set for a particular hour? Something else? I welcome opinions. If it is an Order of the Day, then I submit that it should interrupt a member who has the floor, whether as a result of a Call for the Orders of the Day, or simply a result of a diligent chair, as described ibid. p. 219, upon noting that the hour has arrived.

Well, it sure ain't considered "agreeing to vote." I think the confusion may have resulted from your earlier statement that you apologized and asked to remain on the board. The president could be excused for assuming that it was within his power, or that of the board, to grant that request. And so he raised the question of whether you should be allowed to remain on the board---essentially on whether to accept your resignation. It would have been better if instead of asking to be allowed on the board, you had simply stated that, as your resignation had not yet been accepted, you were withdrawing it. If your request can properly be considered a withdrawal, then you are still a member. If it is not, then the president has already placed your resignation before the board, and even though that was not resolved at the time, it would be too late to withdraw it. Your best bet at this point is to take the position that the letter of apology was effectively a withdrawal of your resignation because you expressed in it your intention to remain on the board, which you had the right to do at the time. In that case, there is no action required by the board, and no action required by the president to "accept" your withdrawal. Prior to acceptance, a resignation can be withdrawn unilaterally without permission.

Other than agreeing with Mr. Martin regarding what's in order, I'd say yes, that's the general idea. But in my view, I think when 4:30 arrives, and someone is speaking, this would properly interrupt the speaker. I would say something like: "The time for adjournment has arrived. Accordingly, <pause> if there is no motion to extend the meeting, <long pause> the meeting <hover gavel> is adjourned. <Gavel>" And be prepared for a barely-under-the-wire allowable-at-adjournment motion. Should the motion to extend be made and adopted, (and if someone was interrupted): "The motion is adopted, and the meeting is extended until time. (Mr S. has the floor.)"

I believe that the special rule of order, if it does not specifically apply to appeals, would supersede only the general rule in RONR that limits speeches to two in number and ten minutes in duration. It seems to me that the rule applying to appeals is a specific rule which should take precedence over a general rule, especially since it is more restrictive than the special rule, which itself is more restrictive than the rule in RONR. I doubt that the intent of the special rule was to tighten restrictions in some cases and relax them in others. But I agree that ultimately, your organization is responsible for interpreting the special rule, and for amending it if it is ambiguous.

What do the bylaws say about filling vacancies in the office of president in particular? General vacancy-filling rules do not apply in this situation. So, unless the bylaws specifically set out the procedure you've described, that's not how it would work.. If the rules in RONR apply, the VP becomes president the instant the office of president becomes vacant, which creates a vacancy in the office of vice president, and it is that vacancy that gets filled in the normal way. The new president serves out the unexpired remainder of the presidential term.

No. RONR requires only one second at most. RONR does permit more than one second if it is desired to have an excuse for several people to make a seconding speech after nominating some candidate at, say, a political convention. But in the normal course of business, nominations are among the class of items that require no second at all.

A resolution is nothing but a motion, but presented as a more formal written document, often containing the reasoning for its proposal in a series of Whereas clauses, followed by the word RESOLVED, and then some wording that could just as well have been preceded by the words "I move..." There is no effective difference, unless the aim is to read the resolution at some ceremony or to frame it, or both. From a parliamentary point of view, the two are equivalent.

I think the language is already quite clear that such a motion is not in order, and for that exact reason--that if it were allowed confusion might occur. Therefore, to avoid confusion, it is not allowed. Edited to add; I could be wrong but I can't think of an instance where RONR specifies a two-part rule that prohibits something in part A, and then specifies in part B what to do if part A is ignored. If a society were disposed toward breaching part A, why would we expect them to observe part B?

I can tell you that in my experience with a variety of groups using a variety of rules, guidelines, customs, and fits of caprice, I have made myself a solemn promise never to join another group that was not committed to the use of Robert's Rules. I don't have that kind of time to waste.

If I'm reading the question correctly, the second budget was drafted by the board, and sent to and approved by the membership. I don't see a need for any further steps.

But I'd like to reiterate that it would, in my view and, I suspect, that of others, be a Bad Idea absent a very good reason (an example of which I have been unable to imagine).

Are we discussing a real situation in which a motion to reaffirm was actually moved and seconded, and not ruled out of order? Because i would hope in real life the chair would rule the motion out of order. I believe that if the motion failed it would not create an ambiguity, since a failed motion upholds the status quo, while a passed motion "reaffirms". Thus the motion accomplishes nothing in either case. Which is precisely why it should be ruled out of order at the outset.

Yes. "Questioning" is a slightly more polite way of saying that you know someone's motions. But not polite enough to be acceptable.

Calling a member to order is a kind of point of order.

If nobody raises a point of order, or if a majority lets them get away with it, then they stand a good chance of doing so.

Then what are we to make of the footnote on p. 643?: Or the exception to decorum on p.344, ll. 1-5: (emphasis added) Note well the use of the word "or" in the above citation, confirming the idea that a motion to censure and a motion related to discipline are not necessarily the same thing. I don't disagree that "it stands to reason" but I've used that phrase in my attempts to interpret the rules, and have been bitten more than once.

No. Neither the constitution nor the bylaws may be suspended. If it's absolutely necessary for a motion to be put in place, and you have a quorum, what's the problem? I.e., what rule in the bylaws would prevent this motion from being made? It may be possible in some situations to suspend individual rules if they provide for their own suspension, or are clearly in the nature of "rules of order". More information would be needed to determine what applies in your situation.

Oh yes. I've chaired an election meeting where the call for nominations for Secretary was followed by what seemed an eternity of silence. Members took a sudden and intense interest in their fingernails, or the ceiling tiles, until someone finally broke the silence with, "Okay already, I'll do it", followed by an uncontested election.

Well, I'd be glad to be corrected if I have that wrong, but my understanding was that it does not require a trial. If a motion to ratify an action can be, by a simple one-word amendment, be transformed into a motion to censure, without the need to convene any disciplinary tribunals, then when is a trial required? It that example [RONR §10, under Motion to Adopt and Motion to Ratify], the offense did not take place during a meeting--at least not in the same meeting as the motion. If it is the case that a trial is held, then censure is certainly one of the recommendations that can be returned. But under what circumstances would a motion to censure require a trial? I have no wish to be the source of wrong information. That is mine as well, except as noted above. The logic is that if an offense occurs in a meeting, the assembly deciding the punishment (if any) is entirely composed of eyewitnesses to the offense.

Yes, we need more information. What does the rule in the bylaws say? Rules in the bylaws cannot be "appealed", because if properly adopted, rules in the bylaws are correct by definition. And they usually can't be suspended, but there are exceptions. So tell us what this rule says, and who the "entity" is that is objecting to the use of the rule, and upon what grounds?

Censure falls on the lowest edge of what might be called "discipline" and does not require a trial since, apart from expressing the displeasure of the assembly, it imposes no penalty or abridgement of rights. I'm not sure what distinction you draw between private and public censure. RONR provides only one kind of censure, and as with any sort of discipline, strongly advises that no information concerning it would ever be shared outside the society itself.

Both: The chair has the authority to rule whether a motion is in order; however, If members believe the chair ruled incorrectly, they may put the ruling to a majority vote if two members (a mover and a seconder) Appeal from the decision of the chair. See RONR §24. So, yes, it is possible to second-guess the decision of the chair, but members must be prepared to act on it at the time.

I got crumbs on my waistcoat.