Rob Elsman

Yes, I think some violations of the rules are merely technical and are not worth bringing up if no one seems to be harmed. What you describe, however, is not of that category. In other threads, you have made it clear that this body (other than you) has no interest in parliamentary procedure. Anything goes. See how devisive and unproductive the meetings are?

Let me suggest Robert's Rules of Order In Brief, 2nd ed. This book is an educational guide to parliamentary procedure for those who are trying to get up and going.

From the facts given, I would have to assume "gotcha" rules, since no member seems to have raised an Appeal from the decision of the chair immediately after the ruling was made. See RONR (11th Ed.), p. 257, Standard Descriptive Characteristic 3. I just caught on to the fact that the secretary, not the president, was saying all this.

If one is to be used at all, please place the sounding board where the sound system won't pick up the whack and blast it through the meeting hall like an artillery piece going off.

Yes, both Mr. Gerber and Zev have convinced me (especially with their citations—thank you, both) that an affirmative vote on a subsidiary motion to Postpone can, indeed, be reconsidered within the normal frame of time. I am still a lot less clear why this is not an exception to the rule on p. 318, item 2 c).

Even in the light of principle of interpretation 4 on pp. 589-590?

I think I want to disagree (at my own peril!). There is a footnote at the end of item 2 c) on p. 318 that makes quite a point of the exception for Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate. Were Postpone able to be reconsidered after having been partially carried out, I would have expected to see another exception in the same footnote.

Is it not true, though, that once debate has begun on another motion, reconsideration will not be possible, because the motion to postpone will have been executed? RONR (11th Ed.), p. 318, item 2 c).

I have no idea where in RONR you are getting all this, Mr. Hunt.

Okay. Pass my advice along to someone.

I rather do not think it is necessary or appropriate to quote "personal comments" in a motion of censure. I would caution you about this sort of thing, lest you find yourself a defendant in a civil suit, whether meritorious or not. Once again, I would like to recommend that you obtain legal counsel before you go wandering off in this direction.

I suspect the original poster is really seeking help on the difficulty of transacting the organization's business if there is habitually not a quorum at the business meetings. I have previously opined that the habitual failure to obtain a quorum is not a matter of parliamentary procedure. There may be a solution in civil law, or it may be that the organization goes to ruin. At any rate, RONR does not provide a solution.

I think your experiment is intemperate. Over several posts, now, you've been looking for ways to gun down the presiding officer. That's not what parliamentary procedure is for.

I think an attorney is needed to answer your question.

Nothing I know of in RONR gives the chairman of the executive board, whether large or small, the authority to do exactly as the facts are given.

Uh-oh is right. From all the facts given, it appears that the original main motion was null and void ab initio, as Mr. Brown suggests. The only thing needed is a ruling to that effect by the chair, which can be done "at any time". RONR (11th Ed.), p. 251. The questions that may arise about the liability of the organization are questions of civil law about which I will not opine on this forum.

Does anyone know the maximum file size of a photo to upload?

An informal telephone colloquy is possible, but it may very well not constitute a business meeting at which official actions can be taken. The bylaws will control. If the bylaws authorize teleconferences, the executive board can meet and take official actions; otherwise, not.

To Mr. Brown's suggestion that the original main motion be amended to cap the sum to be collected, I would point out that a motion to amend a previously adopted main motion that is null and void on account that it conflicts with the bylaws is not in order. The motion is an improper main motion, persuant to the rule in RONR (11th Ed.), p. 111, item 1.

The deed is, indeed, done, as Mr. Honemann points out. However, just for your own edification, a motion to open debate on a pending motion is neither necessary nor proper. As soon as a motion is before the assembly (oddly, by the "thank you" statement, in this case), the motion is debatable. Had things been on track, the chair should have recognized the "reporting member" of the board to open the debate. The motion to amend the Constitution and Bylaws is, itself, amendable. However, as all can see, there was little, if any, opportunity to rise for the purpose of making such a motion to Amend. Since almost nothing went right, in this scenario, I can clearly see that your organization needs a good boot camp in parliamentary procedure. You might want to take a look at The Little Book.

Dr. Stackpole, I have encountered the same difficulty. I think a photo editor has to be used to make the picture smaller, which, in turn, makes the file size smaller.

The election is to fill the vacancy. The winner will have to stand again for election at the regularly scheduled time.

Debate must be confined to the merits of the pending question. Only what has a direct bearing on whether or not it is advisable to do what the pending motion proposes to be done is allowed. Any kind of dealing in personalities is out of order.

Adoption of a motion means that the society decides to do what the motion proposes. Rejection of a motion means that the society expressly decides not to do what the motion proposes. This is materially different than saying that the rejection of a motion means that the society does not decide to do what the motion proposes. So, yes, the rejection of a motion will put the society on record that it has decided not to do what the motion proposed. See RONR (11th Ed.), p. 32.

I strongly agree with Messrs. Honemann and Martin. As Mr. Honemann is getting at, the words insert a personal note into the debate. As Mr. Martin points out, the words are, in effect, a characterization of the person as untrustworthy.