Rob Elsman

My sense of it is that the handling of multiple main motions dealing with the same topic and choosing among them a la carte, so to speak, is really due to the members' unfamiliarity with the subsidiary motion, Amend, and the order of precedence of motions. The simultaneous handling of multiple solutions to the problem at hand is an attempt to flatten the order of precedence with which the assembly is either unaware or incompetent.

Maybe. Maybe not.

Having multiple main motions pending at the same time would cause impossible confusion and disorder, because the limits of debate would be vague and unenforceable, and the application of secondary motions would be problematic.

What document are you wanting to modify?

The incidental motion you are looking for is Suspend the Rules. The form of the motion would be something like, "I move to suspend the rules that interfere and immediately agree to refer the main motion [...] to the [...]." The motion would be made when no other motion was pending, and its adoption would require a two-thirds vote. The details of Suspend the Rules are discussed in RONR (12th ed.) §25.

How "immediate" is immediate? Foster child? Daughter-in-law? Step-son?

It can only be hoped that the bylaws define with specificity what all these terms mean in the present context.

...to authorize the vice president to preside in place of himself? 😁

I am concerned that these "options" are really in the nature of main motions, in which case there was a violation of a fundamental principle of parliamentary law. We need to establish the nature of these options to determine whether they are main motions or suggestions to fill a blank.

What do you mean by "option"?

"Call the question" is a non-standard form for making the subsidiary motion, Previous Question. Previous Question can, indeed, be applied to a series of pending, debatable motions. So, for example, if there were a main motion and a motion to amend pending, it would be in order for a member to obtain the floor and make the motion, "I move the Previous Question on all pending questions." Just because the member made the motion using a non-standard form is not an excuse for ruling it out of order.

Ordinarily, new items of business are not orders of the day and are not added to an agenda. However, some public bodies are required by law to post an agenda some days prior to the meeting, in which case, the requirements of the law must be carefully met.

The fact that the maker of the Appeal cannot even find one member of the board to second is telling, in my opinion. It suggests, in my mind, that the maker is simply on the wrong side of things, and it suggests much less any tyranny or oppression. Otherwise, we are left to accuse the board members, individually and collectively, of the most egregious kind of dereliction of duty, about which, I must say, I am quite skeptical.

If you are reading my response correctly, there should be no problem understanding that the vice president of the general membership assembly can serve as chairman of one or more committees, but he cannot hold the office of president of the general membership assembly and vice president of the general membership assembly simultaneously without self-contradiction.

As a matter of parliamentary law, a committee has the power to appoint a temporary occupant of the chair when the committee chairman (be he the vice president or otherwise) is absent or otherwise legitimately impeded from presiding. I see nothing self-contradictory about the organization's vice president being the chairman of one or more committees.

Well, Mr. Gerber, quantum mechanics tells us he is present when he is absent, since he actually exists with some probability over the entire range of possible histories. 🙂

Again, the premier duty of the vice president is to preside when the president is not in the chair. It makes no sense for a person to preside in place of himself.

Mr. Honemann, to put it as briefly as I can, the presence of so many items of business in the call of a special meeting that one might think an order of business (either the standard order of business or an adopted agenda) might be helpful indicates to me that the special meeting is being misused when a regular meeting (either more frequently scheduled regular meetings or the proper use of the adjourned meeting to finish the work of a session) is really more appropriate See RONR (12th ed.) 9:13. When a special meeting is not being improperly substituted for a regular meeting, the number of items of business will be few enough that the order of transacting them will be of little practical consequence or interest. I might say in passing that I am certainly not adverse to the infrequent adoption of an agenda that conflicts with the established order of business when there is a reasonable basis to judge that the established order of business is not practical for a particular, regularly scheduled session. As with many other rules of order, there may be occasions where it is prudent to suspend the interfering rules and do something differently. The authors cannot but have noticed the number of topics on this forum that have an agenda (often coupled with a misuse of authority) at the root of the question. An unnecessary agenda is misused, one way or another, by some officer or small faction, to establish a "gatekeeper" over what business the assembly can consider, to the exclusion of other business not favored by the "gatekeeper". Much of this misuse can be dispelled if only the frequently meeting assembly will just drop the custom of the agenda and use the organization's established order of business.

A convention is not a special meeting.

An agenda is not helpful for a meeting that does not have an order of business.

That is not quite correct. Being a vice president necessarily precludes the person from simultaneously being president, since the very purpose of the office of vice president is to take the chair when the president is not present or is otherwise legitimately impeded from presiding.

I see no reason to inject a superfluous formality into what should be a fairly perfunctory procedure. Indeed, were I in the chair, and the number of objections to the unanimous consent request were few, I would judge that guidance was sufficient, omit asking for a second, and immediately put the question.

You're raising a really excellent question. Thank you for asking. It is a rule of thumb that any motion that has the effect of permanently disposing of a main motion is debatable and amendable. This has to do with the fundamental nature of a deliberative assembly. Any exception to this rule of thumb (such as Objection to the Consideration of a Question or Previous Question) requires a two-thirds vote. This rule of thumb explains why Postpone Indefinitely is so low-ranking in the order of precedence. Since the very purpose of Postpone Indefinitely is to kill a main motion and suppress it for the remainder of the session, it is right that the assembly should have the opportunity to perfect the main motion before having to vote on whether to kill and suppress it. On the other hand, the motion, Commit, has as its purpose "that the question may be carefully investigated and put into better condition for the assembly to consider". This conflicts with the purpose of Postpone Indefinitely, so the adoption of Commit necessarily means that the assembly does not wish to kill and suppress the main motion. That is why Postpone Indefinitely is dropped. The assembly expects the committee to report the main motion back for further consideration (with or without recommendations).

Again, there is no order of business in a special meeting.

Never. The maker of the request should never be put in the position of being denied his right to make a motion simply because he misjudged the appropriateness of making his request in the form of a unanimous consent request.