Rob Elsman

Well, I am not sure what exactly you would propose to censure. So far, about the only thing we have any information about is the person's being "overbearing". What that means we are left wondering. So far as we have any facts, no rules have been violated. Isn't the suitability for office of an "overbearing" person left to the judgment of his electors?

No rule in RONR prohibits it. Of course, no one is required to believe a word the person says, either.

I suppose your organization wanted a bully when it elected him. At the next election, nominate someone who has an attitude "...in the right spirit of things". Meanwhile, the members of the board are going to have to find ways to collaborate with the bully for the sake of the welfare of the organization as a whole.

If practicable, Amend Something Previously Adopted also has the advantage of not opening up the entire main motion to amendment, which would be the case if a motion to Reconsider an adopted motion to Amend were made after the main motion was adopted.

If all the members are present, Amend Something Previously Adopted might be more efficient than Reconsider. 😊

Why do you think it makes a difference what side the maker of Amend Something Previously Adopted voted?

I suspect more people think that the general's surname is Roberts than those who think it is Robert. He likely had to put up with this his whole life long.

For one thing, there should be little delay after a roll call vote has been taken. The secretary's form should be so designed that a running total of the ayes and nays is kept as the voting proceeds. After the last vote is cast, it is merely a matter of the secretary's handing the president the totals. If this is done properly, there is no need to delay the proceedings with a tabulation.

During voting and until the result is announced by the chair, the only motions that are in order are those that arise out of the voting. There is no provision in RONR for passing out a "call to question".

I'm less certain about whether the original poster desires to continue debate. However, granting that he does–for the sake of argument—I think I would favor a preliminary main motion over your suggested incidental motion, because a preliminary main motion would be debatable as to the merits of shutting off amendments.

No. The maker should offer the main motion in the regular way. After the chair has stated the question, the maker rises to be assigned the floor. After being recognized, the maker can make his speech, ending with a motion for the Previous Question. If the motion for the Previous Question is adopted by a two-thirds vote, further amendment is shut off, and the main motion is put to a vote. This works because the maker of the motion has preference in recognition over other members competing for the floor.

Hey, a colonoscopy gets you a lot of sympathy from me...😞

Yes, that's the way to go about it! Another possibility is to refer the general topic to a committee to investigate various options and make a recommendation to the assembly.

I get the strong impression that what is desired is more than filling a blank. I believe what he really wants is to have several main motions before the assembly simultaneously. This violates a fundamental principle of parliamentary law. It is Lesson #1: You can only consider one main motion at a time. This rule cannot be suspended. For this reason, a motion that proposes to place before the assembly multiple, independent solutions to a problem is not in order.

Such a main motion offering multiple solutions to the same problem a la carte is not in order on account of improper form.

By "preliminary main motion", I mean one of a series of main motions made to set the parameters for consideration of another main motion in the series. These "parameters" might set the limits on the length and number of speeches; set limits on the number of amendments; set limits on the number of motions to commit; etc. It will usually be the case that such a motion will have the effect of suspending the rules. When it does, it requires a two-thirds vote for adoption.

A preliminary main motion can be used. However, since the motion, if adopted, would have the effect of suspending the rules, this preliminary main motion would require a two-thirds vote for adoption.

I think the main thing is to keep alternate delegates separate from the voting members to prevent illegal votes by illegal voters.

Since I cannot see the bylaws, I cannot make any judgment about any possible provision for extraordinary levies or the vote that might be required to adopt one, if it is possible at all.

You're correct. I will make the appropriate edit. Thank you for pointing it out.

See Official Interpretaion 2006-18 on the official Robert's Rules website, www.robertsrules.com.

You will notice, once again, that the bylaw that was quoted to us was written in the passive voice without an agent—therefore, all this confusion about which body can do what. I will repeat my advice that organizations should compose their bylaws and rules in the active voice where the agent of each main verb is regularly the subject of the sentence.

Again, I have to wonder whether the time within which a result can be challenged has already expired. If it has (and I'd bet my typing finger on it), then the allegation of irregularities is moot.

I am still not seeing facts that would lead me to conclude that the rules require another vote.

Well, aside from all the confusion, there are limits within which an election can be contested, and it might well be that the time has expired, regardless of the irregularities that are alleged. RONR has a whole lot to say about elections. Oddly enough, people seem to want to know about elections only afterward. It would be better for all involved to get hold of copies of RONR and do your training before an election, so all the contention after the election can be avoided.