Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

J. J.

Members
  • Content Count

    4,160
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About J. J.

  • Birthday 01/01/1963

Profile Information

  • Location:
    Philadelphia
  • Interests
    Procedure, History, Politics, Genealogy, a Missing Person Case in Central Pennsylvania, and, of course, Donna Summer.

Recent Profile Visitors

2,698 profile views
  1. At this point in RONR, I think Mr. Honemann is correct in his view that the 12 edition of RONR does prohibit a member from speaking against a motion that he originally made. The reason that I agree is because 43:25 would not be necessary for the other interpretation. This is an explicit statement. However, in that regard, it must be said that 33:13 statement, "After the a motion has been stated by the chair, it belongs to the meeting as a whole ... ," is an inaccurate characterization of the parliamentary situation. There is another argument that Mr. Gerber's view is more logical, and
  2. I'm not suggesting anything. I am saying that if we regard the motion to now be the "property" of the assembly, it is no longer the motion of the original maker. 43:25 would not make sense in that case. It does, at least with a cursory review, look as if the prohibition no longer exists in the general parliamentary law.
  3. Technically, after the chair states it, it is no longer the maker's motion. That would mean that a member could speak against at any time it is in order to debate the motion. Under this theory, a member could speak against a motion that he originally made anytime that debate is in order. That would not explain why 43:25 is in the text.
  4. That is where I'm looking and I could not find a prohibition. Nothing in Jefferson that I can find.
  5. I'm not sure if you mean a vote of the board or the vote of the assembly that elects the board.
  6. I do have a copy, but I'm not parting with it. You do how to contact me and I'll be happy to read the appropriate section to you.
  7. Technically, so may rescind, because it can be amended into Amend Something Previously Adopted.
  8. I also look forward to it. I would note that there are situations where the negative need not be called, e.g. a courtesy resolution and where unanimous consent is used. That does not make the negative intrinsically irrelevant. To use the unanimous consent example, anyone that was present when the vote was taken can move to reconsider.
  9. It is certainly possible to have a meeting without Peer reviewed, and occasionally rejected. It is certainly possible to have a meeting without an agenda or order of business. An agenda may be used (or misused) to limit consideration of certain subjects. Failing to adopt one, in meetings happening less often than quarterly, would mean that there was no limitation. I take a dim view of an intrinsically irrelevant vote because of the possibility of reconsideration. The assembly, part way through the meeting, might decide that a limitation is appropriate. I believe the
  10. When a motion has been carried out completely, it cannot be rescinded. A motion that can be reached by calling up a motion reconsider cannot be rescinded. A motion to expel someone from office or membership cannot be rescinded. In some cases, a motion to elect someone to an office cannot be rescinded after the person has been informed (35:6).
×
×
  • Create New...