Rob Elsman

The motion to adopt the resolution was rejected. The item of business is completely transacted, and there is nothing further to wait for. The body has decided not to do what the resolution proposed.

Because there are so many possibilities, it is best to read RONR (12th ed.), especially §§ 16 and 41.

If main motions or amendments are of such length that the secretary cannot take them down when they are read aloud, then they should be submitted in writing to the secretary.

No. If this is an accurate reading of the bylaws, then the answer must be "no".

No. The fact that notice of an item of business is included in the call of a meeting does not, by itself, place business before the assembly.

I am just guessing that what is really being asked is whether a standing committee can originate a recommendation about a topic that is under its care. The answer is certainly "yes". The committee can adopt a report containing the recommendation, present the report at a meeting of its parent body, and move the adoption of the recommendation at the conclusion of the reading of the report.

Well, the citation wasn't just difficult for me. Mr. Honemann, supporting Mr. Martins' opinion, seemed to venture that the officer's report could be laid on the table, apparently even if the report were to be given only for information. However, my reading of the book does not support this opinion, and no citation was provided by Mr. Martin or Mr. Honemann. It sounds like a case of "do as I say, not as I write", which I have always been opposed to on this forum.

Reports of committees and subcommittees can, indeed, be presented without recommendations. If desired, after the report has been presented, any member of the receiving body can make a motion dealing with the topic of the report (assuming the motion does not require previous notice). After a subcommittee has presented a report with a recommendation, the reporting member may move the adoption of the recommendation. However, if he fails to do so, the chair may call for the proper motion or assume that the proper motion has been made and state the question. At any rate, once the question is before the body, it is handled like any other main motion, which is debatable and amendable.

If this organization has an elections committee that "runs" elections, it should get rid of it. The assembly "runs" its elections with the assistance of its officers. Likewise, the assembly is the judge in any controversy arising from an election. There should be no need for an elections committee to do these things.

I agree with Mr. Brown. This is not a question about parliamentary procedure; rather, it pertains to the delegation of authority to the Managing Director.

I'll take my bow, but I think this was a harder question than it should have been.

Would the proper motion be an incidental main motion, if made before the report was presented?

I own sense of it is that your answer is found in RONR (12th ed.) 14:11.

A president's report presented for information only is neither a motion nor a "question that is actually before the assembly".

I forgot to mention that members can abstain from voting at the meeting, either by not returning a ballot or casting a blank ballot, if they prefer.

It is, indeed, possible for a candidate to withdraw between rounds of voting, but the withdrawal needs to be done at a meeting. It is not clear from the facts given that this happened. I sort of gather that it did not, but I do not understand how the withdrawal happened. Nominations cannot be re-opened without a vote of the assembly at a meeting. If voting is by ballot, another round of voting should be held as soon as possible. Voters could vote for the remaining candidate or write in the name of another eligible person. At any rate, someone will have to get a two-thirds vote to win. Next meeting, bring your onesies and prepare for the long haul.

Well, even if we generously grant that the members would want to implement proper parliamentary procedure were they to know what it is, it seems clear to me that the collective knowledge of parliamentary procedure in this body is not very good. Even worse, the presiding officer does not seem to know very much about the rules or the role of the presiding officer during meetings. So, rather than wait until an "incident" happens again, I would recommend a proactive, preventative approach through immediate education. By itself, though, education will not prevent "incidents". The members must commit to the enforcement of the rules and an insistence that the presiding officer properly carry out his responsibilities.

Take a look at Rescind; Amend Something Previously Adopted, RONR (12th ed.) §35.

If this is a homework assignment, please note that most public libraries have copies available to read in the library. These copies are usually found in the reference stacks. Some libraries also have copies of the book available to be checked out and taken home to read. At any rate, to be sure you have the clearest exposition on the subject, make sure you are consulting the 12th edition. The authors have fairly recently modified the text of the relevant section to clarify it.

Since the attack occurred during a previous session, it is unlikely that a Question of Privilege affecting the rights or privileges of a member would be the correct way to handle the matter, since there would not be the urgency necessary to interrupt the pending main motion motion or what adheres to it. Ordinary main motions or resolutions can be used to originate a disciplinary procedure against the attacker, or a main motion or resolution can be made to propose that the assembly censures the attacker without a disciplinary procedure.

This is, indeed, the kind of textualism that I wish to avoid. This kind of textualism holds that the meaning of a text lives inside the text. In my view, reading a text involves communication that necessarily involves both the writer and the reader. The meaning that is conveyed in this kind of communication involves both the writer and the reader--neither one is sufficient by itself. The meaning, if there is any, exists within this interaction between writer and reader. Those who have read me on this forum over the years know that I have long applied what I have called the average reader test. I have held that it is not sufficient for the authors to intend to mean something when they write RONR; and, unless the average reader is able to reach the meaning with a good faith reading of the text, the writing does not mean what the authors intended. So, when it is said that what I, a reader, believe is immaterial, I am concerned. It is not sufficient that words are on my page, however much they are "still there". The words do not have some kind of little beads of existential meaning encapsulated in them. What I and other readers believe is of upmost importance, because, without me and all the other readers of the book, the words of the book do not have any meaning at all.

From my perspective, the requirement that all business to be transacted at a special meeting be included in the call of the meeting is solely intended to inform the members in advance in order that they might determine whether to make the necessary adjustments to their schedules and make arrangements to travel and lodge in order to attend the meeting. It would not be fair to members to have them make these decisions without a complete understanding of what business would be transacted. All this falls to the wayside if all the members actually attend the meeting. If all the members are present, no member can claim to have been absent on the basis of having been misled about what business would be transacted. It is in this sense that I say that the rule at 9:15 is moot when all members are actually present. Disagreeing with Mr. Gerber, I do not see any other purposes for the rule at 9:15. I have to wonder if Mr. Gerber has confused the requirement at 9:15 with the requirement for previous notice of a motion. Now, if the rule at 9:15 is not in operation (because all the members are actually present), it does not interfere with the transaction of business. It is for that reason that I claim that it is not necessary--in fact, it is absurd--to suspend the rule to allow the transaction of business not mentioned in the call of the meeting.

Okay. I will stand by my previous answer as a matter of the common parliamentary law. If the California Brown Act is controlling, however, you will need to get some legal help.

Yes, Mr. Honemann, that is my opinion. I do not agree that 9:15 operates for other purposes than protecting the rights of absentees, as seems to be the position taken by Mr. Gerber. New business is introduced in regular meetings without the preparation Mr. Gerber speaks of; I do not see why 9:15 would be necessary for such preparation for special meetings. I think this is a red herring.

If you are asking a question about statutory law, you will need to seek legal counsel. As we are fond of saying, we don't do legal here.