Rob Elsman

There is no rule in RONR that requires minutes to be made available to the public.

Please don't do that. Although the thread may get stale, the topic itself probably doesn't. I would like to learn, even from old entries. 🙂

Unless a committee is of such large size that it functions more like an assembly, seconds for motions in committees are not required.

Assuming the current bylaws require previous notice of a motion to amend them, the rule at RONR (11th ed.), pp. 121-124, applies, and the full text of the motion or resolution must be sent along with the call of the special meeting, in the same way that previous notice of a motion or resolution would be read in full if it were given in a meeting. It will be sufficient that the call, itself, of the special meeting give an accurate, but brief, description of the matter.

When I try to go to the Robert's Rules Official Website, www.robertsrules.com, I get an error message, HTTP Error 403.14, instead of the website. Boss Lady, has the website disappeared for some reason?

When plank 2.5 is considered at the convention, the amendment to modify it is in order. An amendment to modify plank 2.5 is not in order when plank 2.5 is not being considered.

The form of the motion seems to have been improper and the motion should not have been placed before the assembly. However, now that the motion has been adopted, it will be up to the assembly to figure out what it intended.

Forgive me if I just muse here a little. My limited experience with this kind of motion is a little different. This motion is used in organizations in which the sentiment of solidarity is highly valued (e.g. labor unions or political parties). The intended purpose of the motion is not to change the outcome of the vote previously taken; rather, the motion's purpose is to rouse the assembly to express solidarity for the action just completed. As such, the motion has some value, I suppose. In organizations where it is used in this way, I would not rule the motion out of order. In other organizations, however, I think the motion is dilatory.

I believe the first word in RONR (11th ed.), p. 320, l. 29 should be read as "at", instead of "as".

I am of the opinion that what is said in RONR (11th ed.), p. 408, ll. 21-26, does, indeed, apply to votes taken by the ballot method, as well as any other method of voting. I was questioned about this matter during the preparation of the 11th ed. (having to do with the parenthetical reference to p. 22 in the 10th ed.). My response then, and now, is that the referenced rule applies to any method of voting, including any method of secret voting. It is a matter of honor that the member wishing to change his vote accurately and truthfully reports how he voted.

Do I sense a "not hole"?

I agree. And, this applies not only to the deaf, but also to other groups with various kinds of physical limitations.

One of the distinguishing characteristics of a deliberative assembly is that the group meets "...for simultaneous aural communication...", RONR (11th ed.), p. 1, ll. 12-14.

If it is your suggestion that the authors didn't really mean it when they included "aural" to modify "communcation", then I have to disagree. They meant it.

I realize that I lay a very heavy burden on the authors to say what they mean, to say everything they mean, and to say nothing but what they mean, in a way that is reachable by the reader of average intelligence, average education, a good heart, and a little common sense. But, when the authors say "aural", I take it that they mean "aural", everything that "aural" means, and nothing but what "aural" means to the average reader.

In my opinion, words in RONR that have not been given a particular, technical meaning (e.g., quarterly time interval) should be understood in their ordinary, dictionary sense. Thus, "aural" means what we all understand it to mean, and nothing else.

I, for one, do not have a hard and fast opinion about the seating of the executive board at the front of the meeting hall. If the members of the board do not try to pontificate over the general membership assembly, I'm fine with board members sitting in the front. Multiple posts on this forum over the years have, however, reported that the executive board sometimes hijacks the general assembly meeting, depriving the members of the general membership assembly their rights to make motions, speak in debate, etc., etc. For an organization where this is the tendency, I recommend that the board members who are members of the general assembly sit with the other members of the general membership. If the hall is not arranged this way when the meeting begins, the assembly can order the board members to vacate their places and take their seats with the other members.

Yes: The president should be seated at a place where he can see and hear the members, and the members can see and hear him. The secretary should be seated near the president to facilitate the exchange of papers, as necessary. The parliamentarian should be seated at a place that is convenient for advising the president. Otherwise, the assembly is in control of its meeting hall, and it controls the seating arrangements.

J. J. has already cited the proper place--"Since there is no second, the motion is not before this meeting."

Sure. I agree.

I agree with J. J.

The rejection of a motion means only that the assembly expressly decides against doing what the motion proposes--nothing more. I agree that the customary practice should still be followed. See RONR (10th ed.), p. 31, ll. 31-34.

For your convenience, there is a list of motions that require a two-thirds vote in RONR (10th ed.), tinted page 46, at the back of the book.