Ann Rempel

8 hours ago, Kim Goldsworthy said:

Q. Where is the evidence that "a paper ballot rule" or "a secrecy rule", is related to a minutes rule?

RONR, 11th ed., p. 418, lines 26-31: The tellers' report is entered in full in the minutes, becoming a part of the official records of the organization. Under no circumstances should this be omitted in an election or in a vote on a critical motion out of a mistaken deference to the feelings of unsuccessful candidates or members of the losing side. 

The question reminds me of a book, Who Moved My Cheese?

Where would such a rule be located? I'm trying to understand what kind of governing document can never be changed?

23 hours ago, Hieu H. Huynh said:

In the 11th edition:

On page 618, line 34, the reference "p. 607, ll. 18-21" doesn't seem to be related to "the seating of delegates and alternates" from the previous line. Should it be some other reference?

Perhaps the reference should be p. 607, ll. 24-29.

GEORGE!!!!

alr concedes to Hieu because alr didn't find the typo. A student with better eyes pointed it out.  

The word "be" is missing between the words "must" and "called" in the 11th Edition, p. 387, line 21

I have always looked forward to reading the posts by Mr. Honemann, and for that reason I formed a habit of reading the message board almost every day. I have found the information he provided to be very useful. His postings have helped me grow in knowledge of parliamentary procedure and are a huge part of my "parliamentary education." So I'm relieved to know we can expect to continue to "put up" with him.

I made a 200 mile drive today and that gave me time to think about this some more - when I wasn't looking at the cows, horses, green grass, etc, as well as the highway. I decided it would be better to use the motion to reopen nominations since that might provoke more nominations to resolve the deadlock and at the same time allow for more debate. However, in my experience, I see little debate in regard to nominations. I see speeches by candidates and speeches, sometimes, by the members to make the nominations. And of course, I agree with Dan in Post #2 and in other posts, too, George.

Well, the assembly, by majority vote, can authorize the making of nominations from the floor even after they have already been made by ballot (p. 437, ll, 3-7). Pretty much like a motion to reopen nominations, I suppose.

So by majority vote, the assembly can adopt the undebatable incidental motion to reopen nominations in order to get to where they want to go, which is simply reopening debate. Why not just allow an undebatable incidental motion to reopen debate and avoid something that appears to be "game playing"? That seems more straight-forward to me despite the fact that a motion to reopen debate is not listed in RONR. In such a case, I think most assemblies would understand much better what they were really voting on.

Although, there is no motion in RONR to reopen debate, could such a motion be considered to be an unlisted incidental motion?

I would like to point out that in order to claim NAP credentials, one must be a member of NAP.

The wording on 255 related to the basic right to participate is clear. Plus, as in the by-laws of an organization that I am familiar with, state "all members will be allowed to speak at least once and for not more than 10 mins....". I realize that this would supercede Roberts, but I also believe the wording on 255 and the basic premise that everyone should be allowed to speak to a motion cannot be taken away be calling the question. In other words, the time you can call the question is after everyone has had a chance to speak, not before. I do appreciate the information passed on due to this question. Paulc6

The subsidiary motion Previous Question exists for a very good reason. To stop debate and amendments when two-thirds of those present and voting want it stopped. The rights of the assembly override the member's right to keep talking. If the Previous Question is moved, seconded, and adopted by a two-thirds vote, then it is ordered that debate stop -- no matter how many people have or have not spoken in debate. Please reveiw pp. 189-201.