Rob Elsman

The same thing goes if the committee went into executive session, so why the earlier response?

Is the 10 day notice a requirement merely to give notice that the assembly will meet (a "call of the meeting"), or does it mean that previous notice of each main motion is required?

I was particularly responding to @J. J. speaking of "...non-committee members...", but it is true that the rule says "No one..." That would include necessary staff members of the committee who might also be members of the society. Again, I would emphasize the purpose of the rule. In order to have a thorough-going deliberation to arrive at the best judgment, it is necessary for the committee members to have the freedom to speak frankly without reservation.

RONR (12th ed.) has nothing to say about persons who are "liaisons" to boards.

If the members cannot, why would it be logical to say that non-members can? Isn't that a little goofy?

The minutes can, if necessary, stack up. When they are finally brought to a meeting, they can be read and approved, one after the other, in the order of the dates of the meetings. As you seem to already know, this is less than optimal, because people forget over time what actually occurred, so making corrections becomes more difficult. If you feel the secretary has ventured into the field of inexcusable dereliction of duty, it is possible for this secretary to be deposed from office and replaced.

May this is a hobby club for filing secretaries. 😉

I have Table II, motion 3 to support my position. I hardly think it is fair to suggest that I am "someone insisting upon a misinterpretation of a rule in RONR".

When a majority of insufficient size has to resort to quorum busting to end the transaction of business, it is certain that the solution is incorrect. It, too, is the parliamentary equivalent of division by zero in mathematics.

The proposed solution simply means that a majority of insufficient size will get up and leave the one room or area in which the meeting is being held. This is colloquially known as "quorum busting", a practice that should be unnecessary and undesirable in parliamentary law properly used.

The chair seems to be pretty bossy. Is any of this hogwash actually enshrined in the rules?

Unfortunately, this is the solution that lets a minority of sufficient size hold the assembly hostage until the hour arrives. It's the parliamentary equivalent to division by zero in mathematics.

This is quite true, but there are many hours. A motion to adjourn at three o'clock does not pose the same question as a motion to adjourn immediately. The two are not in conflict with one another, because the motion to adjourn at a certain hour is conditional upon the assembly being in session when the hour arrives--it does not guarantee that the assembly will be in session at that hour. There is no need to modify the motion to adjourn at the hour fixed; it is simply moot at that hour if the assembly has already adjourned.

RONR (12th ed.) 50:27 tells us that only committee members have the right to be present during the committee's deliberations. In other words, the deliberations themselves are not carried out during a hearing. The purpose for these closed deliberations is, as I have already said, "...to give committee members the freedom to make frank arguments and reach frank conclusions". In other words, in preparing the committee's report, the members of the committee may need to say things freely that they would not feel comfortable saying in front of a crowd.

Dr. Stackpole used to refer to his hardcopy of the book as "deciduous".

Because assemblies that meet frequently should usually not adopt an agenda at the beginning of each meeting, I would have been more inclined to have said, "... often no". With assemblies that meet less frequently than the quarterly time interval, there is no established order of business, and items of business not reached are just dropped.

Quit tearing out the pages. 🤣

At best, the answer is "maybe yes, maybe no".

The correct answer to the second question depends on facts not in evidence.

I would feel the need to mention this path, though I have my reservations about it, because of the respect and authority that you, Mr. Honemann, have acquired in my mind.

Well, this is certainly fair. I was trying to wrap up the most common procedures written into the book under a one-word shortcut.

It is the committee's deliberation that is confidential. This is necessary to give committee members the freedom to make frank arguments and reach frank conclusions. The committee communicates to its parent body by way of reports, written in conformity to the relevant rules and instructions.

The term, "out of order" in RONR (12th ed.) takes its ordinary meaning. I found the "formal" definition by consulting my favorite, reputable dictionary.

I don't mean to imply that rules cannot be suspended. Much of the common parliamentary law is suspendable. My point is that the "vanilla" rules in the book can apparently be used to reach this bizarre result. This, for me, is like the rabbit hole to Alice's Wonderland. Serious reservations are raised in my mind that the premises of the argument are correct.

I'll ask Mr. Elswood. He's right here with me. 😁 Seriously, I mentioned it because the question has been asked multiple times on this forum whether there is a way to have an "up or down" vote on a main motion, by which is presumably meant the elimination of the opportunity for compromise through modification. It turns out that there is, in fact, a path to do this using only subsidiary motions lined up in a certain way. This parliamentary situation is, in my mind, bizarre. We see a lot of motions that are amendable and undebatable, but we do not see motions that are debatable and unamendable. That is because the deliberative process focuses the assembly on reaching a compromise through modification—as it should. The upshot is that I will have to mention this path whenever the "up or down" question is raised again, though I continue to have grave reservations about it.