Rob Elsman

But my 15:8 is suspendable. 😆

Depending on the form of the motion made, this might or might not be an option. My concern focuses on the motion not being admissible on account of improper form. With care, though, I can see how this might be possible.

Exactly what did the chair say when he announced the result of the vote?

Thank you, Mr. Honemann, for your patience and your persistence.

I don't know how Mr. Mervosh does it. He's a wizard. Many thanks for your help.

I am hopeless at searching this forum. Always have been. If it helps refresh your memory, you were interpreting RONR (12th ed.) 16:9 in the case where Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate had been moved before Previous Question was moved. It had been the opinion of Mr. Martin and I that Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate should be dropped when all of its affected motions in a series were already affected by the adoption of Previous Question. M Meanwhile, I'll keep looking.

When the authors discuss this matter, I hope there will be a thorough examination of the precise meaning of "...at [...] o'clock". I sense that the words are meaning two different things in different parts of the book, and it is this ambiguity that is fueling the disagreement. The purpose of the order seems to me to prevent the meeting from continuing beyond the hour fixed. As such, the order is conditional upon the meeting being in session when the hour arrives, but it does not require the meeting to be in session at that hour. This is the same meaning that I give to "...at [...] o'clock" when used in a motion, Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate, to close debate at a certain hour in the future. If that is not correct, I would strongly recommend that the authors modify the book to not use the same phrase in both places.

Mr. Honemann has previously said in another topic that the adoption of the motion, Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate, subsequent to the adoption of the motion, Previous Question, means that debate within the adopted limits is allowed until the order for debate is exhausted, while amendments will not be in order until the order for the Previous Question is exhausted. This gives rise to the unusual and bizarre parliamentary situation where, in this instance, the main motion is debatable but unamendable. The upshot is the elimination of the opportunity for compromise through modification. I am much less convinced. The opportunity for compromise through modification is such a fundamental aspect of the deliberative process that I have serious reservations about his opinion.

The proper authority for disciplinary matters can open a disciplinary procedure to determine whether the "self-eject[ion]" without a legitimate excuse amounts to dereliction of duty of such severity that real harm may result for the society as a whole. Of course, such behavior may also be used as fodder at the next election, should these members stand again for election to office.

If I am comparing apples and oranges, why is the same language, "...at [...] o'clock", used with different meanings in the book? Doesn't such an ambiguity create confusion? It certainly has with me.

I said "executive board", not "executive committee". An "executive committee" is the board of a board. When I am speaking of a committee empowered to approve the minutes of the General Membership Assembly, I am speaking of a special committee of the General Membership Assembly that will go out of business, so to speak, once the minutes have been approved.

The spectator has no right to make a motion to request to speak, unless the assembly has adopted some kind of special rule of order. Spectators ordinarily must refrain from any kind of disturbance during the meeting, and an invitation for a non-member to speak (whether to make a presentation or speak in debate on a pending motion) must be initiated by a member of the assembly.

Yes, there are a couple of ways (maybe three): a preliminary main motion that prohibits amendment of the main motion (the motion requires a two-thirds vote for adoption, since it has the effect of suspending the rules, RONR (12th ed.) 10:8(7)(b)) the mover (who has the right to speak first after the question on the adoption of the main motion has been stated by the chair) can 1) make the subsidiary motion, Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate, to modify the usual rules for the number or length of speeches on all pending questions, and 2) before the adoption of the above subsidiary motion, make the higher-ranking subsidiary motion, Previous Question applied to all pending questions. If the Previous Question is adopted by a two-thirds vote and Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate is likewise adopted by a two-thirds vote, the resulting unusual parliamentary situation will be that 1) amendments are shut off until the order for the Previous Question is exhausted, and 2) the main motion will be debatable within the limits adopted when the order to Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate was adopted and until this order is exhausted. So says Mr. Honemann (one of the authors of the book, who uses the motto, "Fear the Wrath of Dan" for a good reason 😐) I am less convinced than he is. This unusual and bizarre parliamentary situation is like a boxing match with one of the contestants having one arm tied behind his back. the mover can make the subsidiary motion, Previous Question, on all pending questions, the effect of the adoption of which (by a two-thirds vote) will be to shut off both amendments and debate until the order is exhausted.

Thank you, Mr. Honemann. I agree completely with you. What I am probing is the precise meaning in parliamentary law of the words, "...at [...] o'clock" or very similar words. If "...at nine o'clock p.m." in this instance means, "...does not mandate that debate continue until the time prescribed for closing debate. It simply orders that debate shall not be allowed to continue beyond that time.", then why in another instance (discussed in this topic: Topic 43344) does the meaning of "adjourn at [...] o'clock" in an agenda pose the same question as, "I move to adjourn" made before the hour fixed in the agenda has arrived? Why does "adjourn at [...] o'clock" not mean "...does not mandate that [the meeting] continue until the time prescribed for [adjournment]. It simply orders that [the meeting] shall not be allowed to continue beyond that time"?

I do not believe that I said I was thinking of the adoption of a subsidiary motion to limit debate as a motion to suspend the rules--merely having "...the effect of suspending the rules", which is exactly what Standard Descriptive Characteristic 7 is saying.

My understanding of RONR (12th ed.) 15:5, Standard Descriptive Characteristic 7, is quite the opposite.

Suppose that, at seven o'clock p.m., a subsidiary motion, Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate, is applied to an immediately pending main motion: "I move that at nine o'clock p.m. debate on the main motion be closed." See RONR (12th ed.) 15:19(b) for a similar form. Suppose the motion is adopted by a two-thirds vote shortly after seven o'clock, having the effect of suspending the rules. Now, suppose that, at eight o'clock, a privileged motion, Adjourn, is made while the order limiting debate is unexhausted: "I move to adjourn." Is the motion, Adjourn, in order at eight o'clock while the order suspending the rules and closing debate at nine o'clock is still in effect, or must the assembly first reject the subsidiary motion upon reconsideration? If the motion, Adjourn, is in order while the order suspending the rules and closing debate at nine o'clock is still in effect, does the privileged motion require a two-thirds vote for adoption, since it presumably conflicts with the previously adopted order having the effect of suspending the rules and closing debate at an hour not yet reached?

I guess it would be of benefit to quite a number of members; otherwise, the authorization would not be in the bylaws.

If the General Membership Assembly regularly meets less often than the quarterly time interval, that assembly should make provision for a committee with power to approve the minutes, rather than letting them lie around unapproved until memory of the meeting fades. Having the executive board approve them is acceptable, I suppose; but, having the board approve the minutes of the General Membership Assembly will tend to blur the distinction between the two assemblies, so I would opine that this arrangement is less than optimal.

Were I able to be a fly on the wall when the authors discuss this!

I strongly disagree. As I have said previously, there is no parliamentary situation where a minority of sufficient size can hold a meeting hostage. None. This is why I say that Motion 3, Table II is perfectly correct as it is written. An order that the assembly adjourn at a certain hour is conditional upon the assembly's being in session when the hour arrives; thus, the order may be correctly interpreted as, "...shall adjourn no later than...".

Yes. The motion you want is a special kind of an incidental main motion called Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted. All the particulars of the motion are given in RONR (12th ed.) §35. Note that the motion has special requirements for adoption, and it might be advantageous to give previous notice.

A motion to adjourn in advance of the hour fixed to adjourn is adopted (by majority vote!), and all this other silliness bites the dust.

No, of course they don't sit there held hostage for two hours. When the hour arrives when there is no further business to transact, the chair announces that the meeting is adjourned without a motion being made. I submit that there is no parliamentary situation whatsoever where a minority of sufficient size can hold a meeting hostage until some hour in the future. None. That's why I opine that Motion 3, Table II, on tinted page 6 is absolutely correct as it is written.

Thank you, Mr. Novosielski, for the relief.