Rob Elsman

Frank may truly be a liar, but I am not allowed to call him a liar in debate. I am allowed to demonstrate why his arguments and conclusions in debate are based on incorrect facts or faulty logic.

In effect, statement #1 amounts to calling the member a bully. This is not a factual statement; rather, it is a characterization about another member. It is no more in order than calling the member a liar.

A member is not permitted to engage in name-calling, so example #1 is not in order. Statement #2, which is made without reference to any member in particular, might be in order if, and only if, it has a direct bearing on a pending motion, such as a motion to adopt a resolution creating an investigative committee as the initial step in a disciplinary procedure.

Gratuitously inflammatory language about another member is clearly not in order.

Yes, the main motion can be taken from the table by majority vote. You understand the rule perfectly.

Only those arguments in debate that have a direct bearing on the motion before the assembly are permissible.

The debate of a subject presupposes that a motion has been made, or, at least, will be made immediately.

Most likely, each regular, bi-weekly meeting constitutes a separate session. While a motion can be taken from the table, it is not in order to make it again, as if for the first time.

I disagree that the motion to Lay on the Table was being misused in this instance. As I understand the facts, the motion was temporarily disposed of to proceed to other business while someone tried to contact the absent member. The intention was, as I understand it, to take up the item at an indeterminable time after the member had been reached. In this case, the use of the motion seems to me to be consistent with the purpose of the motion, Lay on the Table. Had I been the presiding officer, I would have considered it to be in order.

It is just common sense, I think, that one member makes a motion. Even in the case of the recommendations of a committee, one reporting member makes the motion on behalf of the committee. The seconding of motions by multiple members is superfluous, but not improper.

1. The presiding officer will refuse to recognize a non-member for the purpose of making motions unless the assembly has suspended the rules for this purpose by a two-thirds vote. 2. The presiding officer will refuse to recognize a member for the purpose of making motions if the right of the member to make motions has been suspended on account of the operation of a bylaw or the imposition of a punishment arising from a disciplinary procedure. 3. The presiding officer will refuse to recognize a member for the purpose of making motions if, after several warnings, the member persists in attempting to make motions that are clearly dilatory. 4. Other than the instances above, members have a right to make motions that are in order in the present parliamentary situation. The presiding officer abuses the authority of the chair if he improperly and deliberately attempts to prevent members from making such motions.

Yes. In any instance when the ordinary presiding officer is distracted from the ongoing proceedings, a temporary occupant should preside.

Yes, I see that, but the original post leads me to understand that the assessment, in this case, was adopted by the general membership assembly, not the board. If my understanding is correct, I stand by my reply.

Assuming we have a correct reading of the governing documents, I agree with Mr. Brown that the assessment of additional monies as a temporary funding mechanism, in the manner of extraordinary dues, is invalid and constitutes a "continuing breach". RONR (11th Ed.), pp. 251, item "a"; 572; 589-590, item 4.

Unless a member successfully gets the ruling reversed on Appeal, the motion is dead, dead, dead.

Hmm. This raises the question whether a Parliamentarian who is not a member of the assembly can respond to a Request for Information without suspending the rules. My reading of p. 466 leads me to believe that he can, although this should be avoided when possible.

Sorry, I was editing as you were writing! Of course, you are correct, and I was having a "senior moment". 😃

With regard to Question #3, my thoughts regarding Question #1 also apply. The Parliamentarian's opinion is not some kind of state secret. When asked to do so, the Parliamentarian should be willing to respond to a Request for Information for the good of the assembly.

With respect to Question #2, my thoughts regarding Question 1 apply also to Question #2.

With respect to Question #1, I suspect there is more to this than we are being told. Why not just make a Request for Information (as it is preferred to be called, now) and ask the chair if the Parliamentarian would be so kind as to express his opinion on the matter?

See my previous reply.

Yes, if they are members of the general membership assembly, they can make motions, speak in debate, and vote right along with other members. If some of them are not members of the general membership of the organization, these persons will not enjoy these rights.

Huh? Where is that in RONR?

No, I think this statement is incorrect. The subsidiary motion, Amend, can be applied to many secondary motions to which Recind or Amend Something Previously Adopted cannot be applied.

You won't find this anywhere in RONR. The assembly can Recommit a motion to a second committee after having received the report of the first committee.