Rob Elsman

Perhaps an administrator of the forum will take note.

Oddly enough (and foolishly), a motion to suspend the rules that interfere with making a particular indecorous remark in debate is theoretically possible, but, for the life of me, I cannot think of any instance why a rational person would want to do such a thing. I have never seen nor heard of this. It just does not seem real to me.

Generally, the amendments should be arranged from the least inclusive to the most inclusive; however, the assembly can arrange them as desired by majority vote. See RONR (11th. ed.), pp. 593, 594.

With the permission of the board, by a two-thirds vote or unanimous consent to Suspend the Rules, this is perfectly acceptable.

A motion to "table" an adopted main motion is not in order on account of its improper form. There is no such motion to bring an adopted main motion back before the assembly.

Since the agenda does not require approval, but is apparently provided for information only, there really is nothing to correct. If there are some kind of legal concerns that I do not know, you should obtain the counsel of the town's attorney.

Check with your city attorney. My guess is that the mayor must notify the board in writing of the fact of the veto. After this writing is read in the board meeting, a motion to override the veto would likely be in order.

A member raised a Point of Order that the meeting was inquorate, so debate on the immediately pending question could not continue, persuant to the rule in RONR (11th ed.), p. 349. The debate, nevertheless, proceeded on the basis of the presiding officer's mishandling of the procedure following his ruling that the meeting was, as claimed, inquorate. Thankfully, the assembly recessed for catered dinner. When proceedings resumed, the meeting was quorate. The question is: Did the lady who spoke twice while the meeting was inquorate exhaust her right to speak to the question on that day? I opine that she did, indeed, exhaust her right to speak on the question again that day. She spoke during a legal meeting when the question was immediately pending. The affirmative result on the motion to prolong debate might well have been null and void, but a negative result on the motion would have been equally null and void. Ignoring, therefore, this motion, it is clear the debate continued, though in error. In consequence, the lady exhausted her right to speak, and the chair should have ruled that Ms. D's Point of Order was not well taken.

Yes, all main motions, except those that are withdrawn, should be included in the minutes. RONR (11th ed.), p. 469, item 6. Lurking in the background of your question is, I suspect, a misunderstanding of the significance of the rejection of a main motion. When a main motion is rejected, it means that the assembly has decided not to do what the motion proposes. It does not mean that the assembly has not decided to do what the motion proposes. See the subtle difference? Since the assembly has positively decided not to do what the motion proposes, the minutes should reflect the assembly's decision to reject the main motion.

The incorrectly-formed motion to Lay on the Table is likely not in order for three reasons: 1. The motion is not properly formed; 2. The motion to Lay on the Table is being misused to postpone; and 3. The action is a postponement to a time too-far.

The motion, "I move to postpone the main motion", is not in order on account of its improper form.

I do not agree with this, Mr. Brown.

I suspect the wrong term was used. What the member intended was likely a unanimous consent request to postpone.

Nothing in RONR prohibits what the chairman did, since RONR confines itself to the duties and responsibilities of a presiding officer in business meetings.

Gee, is that what I said? 😳

The motion should be recorded exactly as it was adopted, debated or not.

If the "someone" is a member of the board, making a main motion on a new topic during the handling of new business is the ordinary and proper way to bring business before the board. There is no requirement in the rules to discuss the matter beforehand with anyone. There is nothing disrespectful or "undermining" about it.

You're supposed to be out on the bay fishing. 😜

Mr. Gerber: Let me suggest to you that the second sentence of Standard Characteristic 7 for a Point of Order, RONR, (11th ed.), p. 249, be rewritten to clarify that a majority vote is required when the chair is in doubt and puts the question to the assembly.

The default definition of a quorum in RONR (11th Ed.), p. 5, would indicate that the proxies do not count toward a quorum, since the definition uses the word "present". If your organization needs to define quorum in some other way, the bylaws should clearly reflect this.

I agree with Mr. Mervosh. In fact, a member of a committee is not prohibited by rule from voting the opposite way in the parent body.

A majority vote is clearly the correct answer. Page 255 will give guidance on the way the question should be put.

I think what has developed is a question that neither Mr. Brown nor I intended to answer. I also doubt that the original poster was asking about it.

"However, it seems to me that if the chair is in doubt and "punts" to the assembly, it would take a majority vote to rule that the point of order is well taken."

A motion to go into public session has the same characteristics as a motion to go into executive session. It is a main motion that can be raised as a Question of Privilege. It is debatable and requires a majority vote for adoption. As Mr. Lages opines, it may often be dealt with by unanimous consent, especially in smaller bodies.