Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Rob Elsman

Members
  • Posts

    5,098
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Rob Elsman

  1. Article I, Section 5, of the United States Constitution defines the quorum in each house to do business as a majority of the members. This requirement does not change and cannot be suspended.
  2. I have never understood it that way, and I would wager a lot of other people haven't, either. I have always understood a continuing breach to be a violation all the time, so a Point of Order would be in order at any time.
  3. The more times I read the original post, the more apparent it becomes to me that some of the verbs are written in the agentless passive voice. Consequently, it seems more and more likely that I have no real idea what the post actually says. I just do not think I now know who is doing what.
  4. I think the answer to your question will be found in the union's governing documents rather than anything in RONR (12th ed.).
  5. I think I am going to take back my previous agreement with Mr. Honemann about the making of an incidental main motion when no other business is pending. The proper motion is Point of Order, made "...at any time that the action has continuing force and effect..." See RONR (12th ed.) 23:6. This is even true when it is not the case that "...one of the resolution's conflicting sections (which is therefor null and void) is affecting business that is pending during a meeting of the assembly." "At any time" means at any time.
  6. Those who might have compensable damage from the slanderous accusations might want to retain an attorney and pursue the matter in a civil court.
  7. Unless the assembly instructs the Committee of the Whole otherwise, there is no way to limit debate in Committee of the Whole. The only recourse is for the committee to rise and recommend to the assembly to adopt an instruction.
  8. This is one proper way. After the motion, Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn, has been adopted, the subsidiary motion, Postpone to a Certain Time, can be adopted to delay further consideration of the pending main motion to the adjourned meeting.
  9. Yes, I should have been clearer about this. Thank you for the assist.
  10. Yes, I think Mr. Novosielski has this just right. While it seems clear that making suggestions and nominations is limited to members, nothing in RONR (12th ed.) requires that a member making a suggestion or nomination must be "in good standing". I think it will be necessary to look to the relevant bylaws to see if there is some operation at play in this situation.
  11. I am now not sure who is being referred to.
  12. Officers are sometimes asked to present a report on their activities, but what is described here sounds more like a throne speech. 🙂
  13. No, nothing in RONR (12th ed) requires a nominee for office to be a member of the organization.
  14. A Point of Order would need to be raised in a meeting of the body that previously adopted the resolution in question.
  15. The formal name of the motion is "Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate". The motion has several forms that accomplish different objectives. In committees, the subsidiary motion is not in order when any of its provisions would have the effect of closing debate at a future hour or limiting the length or number of speeches a member can make. When the motion has a form that only has the effect of extending the length of speeches, it is in order. Since committees generally operate under the rules for small boards, the number of speeches allowed cannot be extended, since members already are not limited to a fixed number of speeches.
  16. Motions to close or limit debate in a committee are not in order. RONR (12th ed.) 50:25. The book does not say that motions to extend the limits of debate are not in order.
  17. The committee chairman exceeded the scope of his authority and is pretty bossy, too.
  18. I suspect that Mr. Honemann's concern is that this resolution could actually wrap around a series of independent, free-standing proposals. From the additional information provided, I think this might, indeed, be the case.
  19. Yes, tantrums by the disgruntled may require some "structure". 😁
  20. No, the chair should enforce the rules on his own initiative when he becomes aware that there is a significant violation that is disrupting the transaction of business.
  21. Choosing among alternative main motions a la carte, so to speak, violates a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that only one main motion can be pending at a time. RONR (12th ed.) 5:4.
×
×
  • Create New...