Rob Elsman

While we are in the neighborhood, a different outcome occurs if the pending main motion is referred to a committee. In this case, the motion, Postpone Indefinitely, is dropped.

If the assembly that uses the "relaxed" rules that generally apply to small boards and committees, the chair can certainly make motions and otherwise participate in the proceedings, just like any other member. In larger assemblies, where the "patterns of formality" must be more strictly observed, a member of the assembly who is in the chair must refrain from exercising his right to make motions in order to protect the necessary appearance of impartiality. In these cases, the presiding officer must have the least to say about the substance of the proceedings.

Thank you for asking this question about a commonly misunderstood motion. It might be worthwhile to read all of RONR (12th ed.) §37. I do not ordinarily mention this handy primer, but RONRIB (3rd ed.) has a chapter, "How Can a Group Change Its Mind?". I am not entirely clear what is meant by "minutes later", but it is my own opinion that a motion, Reconsider, is not in order if there is no reason to believe that there is a change in time or circumstance that would lead members to change their minds about the motions included in the proposed reconsideration. Some legislatures use the motion to prevent further action. In ordinary societies, the motion is sometimes misused to prevent reconsideration later in the meeting if a change in attendance would likely change the outcome; if this is the only purpose, I would rule that the motion is not in order, were I in the chair. This opinion may be somewhat controversial on this forum, but there you have it. 😐

Since "the book" is, after all, a parliamentary manual, it is difficult to see how it could be shorter, yet comprehensive. Indeed, the trend has been for each edition to be longer, not shorter, to respond to the need for greater clarity and completeness.

This term is in the agentless passive vote, so it is impossible to know who is doing the calling. I do not understand this post. Who thinks he has the authority to do the "calling"? How does this happen? What does the person claim as his source of authority for "calling"? I don't get it.

I guess that's how I read the post, but my answer is basically the same whether it has happened or will happen. 🙂

The minutes should contain only what was done at the 2022 annual meeting. So, unless something was transacted at the 2022 annual meeting that made note that the annual meetings were not held on account of restrictions related to the COVID-19 virus (and I would hazard that this was not likely the case), no notation in the minutes of the 2022 annual meeting would be appropriate.

The fact that the constitution requires a meeting of the Board of Governors to be held at each International Conference implies a corresponding duty upon each of the members of the board to attend the International Conference. Since board membership is a position of trust, the members have some greater than usual obligation to take care of the business of the organization, so the duty to meet at the International Conference is a heavier duty than usual. The upshot of all this is that members who fail to attend without a correspondingly urgent excuse are subject to a disciplinary procedure on account of their dereliction of duty. Read RONR (12th ed.) §61 very carefully. After the offenders have been convicted and deposed from office, find yourselves some people who will be more attentive to their duties.

Well, you know what I say: "It's your rule; you tell us." 🙂

Whether or not an amendment of the bylaws is involved, it seems clear to me, anyway, that a committee must confine its recommendations to matters over which it has care.

Assuming the board has the authority to depose the board president (and I have to wonder), the president steps down from the chair and lets a temporary occupant preside over the disciplinary proceeding. If the board has a vice president, he would take the chair; otherwise, the board is able to elect a president pro tem to preside.

From experience, I have learned that this board flies by the seat of its pants, so to speak. Because of the lack of a knowledge base about proper parliamentary procedure, there is no way to imagine what will be the result, though I think it is possible to predict the chaos in getting there.

I, too, am afraid to ask, but just exactly how will this happen? The chairman of the board reads the motion before stating the question, and the secretary takes it down word for word. Any later reading of the motion would be done by the chairman of the board or its secretary. So, I am not certain what is going on here. Are you saying that the secretary of the board is changing the wording of the motion?

I am inclined to agree with Mr. Martin, but I cannot provide a citation to back me up.

You have to love it... 🙂

The subject of the sentence provided by Mr. Martin is "committee", not chairman.

As far as the common parliamentary law is concerned, the size of the resolution does not affect how it is handled in procedural terms. As with any size of resolution, the chair may express his judgment that the best way to proceed is by consideration paragraph by paragraph. Otherwise, any member may make a motion to proceed in that way. The formatting of the resolution also does not affect how the resolution will be handled in procedural terms.

What answer is offered will be stretching too far, I suspect.

If by "cancelling a board meeting", you mean that some supposed authority determines in advance that the board will not meet at the time and place fixed for the meeting, RONR (12 ed.) does not delegate that authority. You will need to look to the organization's rules to determine if the supposed authority actually has delegated authority to cancel the meeting.

In response to Mr. Lages, an officer who presents his officer's report, made for information only, might well be permitted to answer questions, because he is speaking on his own behalf. The question is quite different where a reporting member of a board or committee is presenting a report. The reporting member is not speaking on his own behalf; rather, he is speaking on behalf of the board or committee for which he is presenting the report. The board or committee has told him what to say; and, that, and that alone, is what he says on behalf of the board or committee. For that reason, he cannot answer questions immediately after the presentation, because he has nothing else to say on behalf of the board or committee; he has already said everything he has been told to say. If there are debatable motions that arise out of the report, the reporting member may speak on his own behalf during the debate that follows the stating of the questions.

From the citation he gave, it appears Mr. Brown misunderstood my response, since his examples seem to highlight debate after the question has been stated and the presenter of the report can speak in debate on his own behalf. I confirm my opinion that the person who is presenting a report on behalf of a board or committee must confine himself to say only what the board or committee has agreed to in its report, precluding any kind of "Q&A" immediately after the presentation has ended.

Since the members adopted the bylaw, it is to be presumed that the members know what it means. It falls to the members to interpret the bylaw and determine what "action" was intended to mean when the bylaw was adopted, and whether debate was to be considered "action". As far as parliamentary procedure is concerned, a member may rise to speak in debate. If the president refuses to assign the floor on account that the bylaw prohibits debate after the first reading, an Appeal from the decision of the chair can be raised by any two members. The appeal will be debatable, and, during debate, the members can deliberate about the matter. It will be of no use to argue this out on this forum. As I am fond of saying, it is your rule; you tell us.

I get this sense that we are getting ready to have a discussion about "action items" in an "agenda". Is this the background to the question?

No. It is fine to canvas the delegation in its place in the convention hall.

For this particular case, Mr. Lages, my own sense of it is that the secretary loses the office of secretary upon becoming vice president by virtue of the operation of the bylaw, so no request to be excused from the duty of being secretary can be appropriately offered, accepted, or rejected.