Rob Elsman

I opine that Standard Descriptive Characteristic 7 of the motion to Appeal from the decision of the chair is sufficient to support Mr. Brown's position. See RONR (11th Ed.), p. 258.

There is no such thing in RONR as "co-chairs". Aside from that, the presiding officer does have the authority (and the duty) to raise a Point of Order about disturbing conduct in the assembly's meeting room that might prevent members from hearing what is being said. If necessary, he may even interrupt a member who has been assigned the floor. Any other member may also raise a Point of Order if he cannot hear the proceedings on account of such a disturbance.

I recommend creating a county chapter in each county where there are members. The county chapters could elect delegates to attend the state convention. The state convention would meet in one place, and the body would have a manageable size.

Having a mixture of "on-site" and "remote" members trying to conduct one meeting will create unsolvable problems of multiple kinds. I agree with Mr. Honemann, but I take a stronger tone. So, no—and I mean no. 😊

I think you need an attorney to help you with this, especially if the church is organized as a corporation.

I understand. I've been bonked before. Perhaps Mr. Gerber has enough to go on and will look's further into this's matter's. ☺️

Me thinks you withdrew too soon, Guest Zev. The construction involving Whitaker is not the same as the construction on p. 488. Whitaker is a red herring, I'm afraid.

Yes. "Motion" is the subject of the passive verb "having been introduced" within the prepositional phrase.

Guest Zev, RONR does not require either "additional instructions" or "instructions that were different from the previous ones" for a motion to Recommit to be in order.

It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that a member has one vote. That vote is indivisible by its very nature, since it represents the member's judgment about the question.

A motion to Recommit is a subsidiary motion having the same characteristics as the subsidiary motion, Commit. See RONR (11th Ed.), pp. 168ff.

Thank you, sir.

Maybe it's time to disband the resident council. Nothing is forever.

I'm sorry to confuse. Mr. Lages' reply was correct, but I replied to your question at your first entry.

Sorry, Mr. Lages, you're well said.

Nothing in RONR requires general members to submit amendments to the bylaws to the executive board prior to making the motion for adoption in the general membership assembly.

The election should not have been abandoned. Although it might be likely that multiple rounds of voting are required, the election continues, even if several meetings are necessary to complete it. The two-thirds vote required is unfortunate, since the election might be prolonged even more.

Actually, the motion is taken up when it is called up, when no other motion is pending. This might, or might not, be after the "intervening business" is disposed of.

There's nothing incorrect about it. But, I think she can spare herself the trouble of repeating it ad nauseam in every thread. This caution, taken from the official website, www.robertsrules.com, is relevant to all threads on this forum: CAUTION: The answers given here to the questions presented are based upon the rules contained in Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised. These rules are, in effect, default rules; that is to say, they govern only if there are no contrary provisions in any federal, state, or other law applicable to the society, or in the society's bylaws, or in any special rules of order that the society has adopted. This fact must always be kept in mind when reading any of the answers given.

Alexis Hunt, you might benefit from reading Mr. Gerber's introduction to this forum. Doing so will relieve you of the burden of making this response, which applies to every thread.

The quorum is based on the number of voting members. If there are eleven voting members, the quorum will be six members until the vacancy is filled.

Mr. Honemann, just think of it as a good fishing day. 😉

I have previously opined that it is not in order for a member to submit an explanation of his vote for inclusion in the minutes. The current situation strikes me as very similar. In my opinion, the submission of a statement of "mistaken vote" is not in order. It would, therefore, require a two-thirds vote to Suspend the Rules to include such a statement in the minutes. RONR (11th Ed.), pp. 468-471, lists the contents of the minutes. I take it that the list is complete, applying principle of interpretation 4 on pp. 589-590.

Not a single respondent cited RONR. The member can make his statement in his personal journal, but it has no place in the minutes. The minutes seem to be correct. There is nothing further to be done.

Mr. Phillips, if you're still following this thread, I would suggest you start answering the questions on this forum, being careful to add citations. Over the years, I have learned a ton on this forum. Mr. Honemann has been very patient with me. Truly, I cannot think of a better "live" experience than this forum.