J. J.

I think that it does give the answer, however. 1. If a main motion has been postponed indefinitely, it is not pending. That is true if the motion has been postponed indefinitely by either a subsidiary motion or as part of an incidental main motion. 2. A motion to reconsider can only be made against a motion that has been disposed, in general. 3. Specifically, if a motion to Postpone Indefinitely is rejected, it is not subject to reconsideration. If it is adopted, it is not pending. I'm trying to understand what the bone of contention is in this. I am failing to at this point.

Please quote the term of office from the bylaws exactly.

For most main motions, the motion was adopted. There are a few situations where some greater vote is needed.

Nothing pending: "Mr President, I move that any consideration of holding an October hay ride be postponed indefinitely." The only advantage I can see is preventing future discussion of it during the session.

Yes, it is, though it is quite rare. Postpone Indefinitely can be raised as an incidental main motion (p. 66, ll. 17-23).

A member may request that something be entered in the minutes; the assembly is able to grant request. That is a simple matter of granting that request. RONR does note that items not normally included in the minutes, seconds, committee remorts, may be entered into the minutes (p. 471).

The sole suggestion is that the member may raise a question of privilege at the next meeting and request that he be permitted to include a statement, in the current minutes, that he voted in error on the motion in question. He would be basically be saying, "I voted this way, but I didn't intend to vote this way. It is too late to change the vote. It might also be possible to move to rescind the prior motion, though that is fairly time consuming.

It depends how many special rules are adopted. A very good example is the US House. They have a parliamentary authority, Jefferson's Manual. However, Jefferson's Manual has been largely superseded by rules adopted by the House. A society, by adopting numerous special rules may, effectively, supersede all most all of its parliamentary authority. It is generally impractical to do so, but it is permissible.

The could supercede almost all rules in RONR by means of a special rule.

From a procedural point, no. One supersedes another.

Many organizations do not have constitutions; if they do they rank above the bylaws.

It can be a bit more complicated than that. Rule Chart.pdf

I'm going to give a different answer than most of my colleagues. The meeting itself is null and void (assuming that there are absentees), because of the improper notice. A action taken in violation of a rule protecting absentees creates a breach of a continuing nature (p. 251, ll. 20-21). A point of order can be raised against this at any time while this breach continues. Someone who became a member after this meeting would be capable of rising a point of order regarding it. Some member who attended this meeting, or who was absent, can raise a point of order after the fact. An improperly called meeting cannot be "counted" as a proper meeting, unless the bylaws say otherwise, because it violates absentee rights. The point of order may be raised again, if the breach is continuing. If the chair decides the same way, that decision should be appealed.

My first question is, if this is a board meeting, are the comments about a member of the board? If this is about a member of the organization that is not a member of the board, it would not be a violation of decorum for a board member to make these type of comments. It might not be germane. Under small board rules, it would be acceptable to consider a response to a member's conduct without a motion pending. It would also be acceptable to refer the question of a response of the member's conduct to a committee of the whole. I'm using the word "conduct" specifically, because it could refer to commendable conduct.

The courts may enforce parliamentary law. In any event, that would be a legal question.

Not hole. There is an example in RONR where it is not necessary to note that the request is granted, nor to ask if there is objection. The chair just orders the action taken.

The chair can rule, but it might not be the correct ruling.

The failure to utter the phrase is "if there is no objection" or "the requested is granted" would be ground ruling an action void after the fact. It would be a breach of a continuing nature. If I can cite an example from RONR, would you agree?

A custom or usage that conflicts with something adopted yields to it; the custom is said to fall to the ground upon a point of order (p. 19). It may be part of the general parliamentary law.

I didn't suggest that it was proper proper. I suggested that it was valid. If the chair does something, improperly, but no one objects, that is the will of the assembly. Qui tacet consentire videtur, i.e. " he who is silent is taken to agree" is, unfortunately, a quite old principle.

The recording of this is proper in my opinion. The minutes should read "The board (or other assembly) eliminated (the committees)," or something similar. If the chair said something like, "Okay, (these specific committees) are abolished," and no one objected at the time, they were abolished, at least from a procedural standpoint. According to RONR, the minutes do not have to list the method of voting, nor the count, except in cases where a count has been ordered by the chair, or where the vote was by roll call or ballot. There may be legal requirements covering your organizations, but that a legal question.

It definitely should be minuted, e.g. "the assembly discharged the committee," in cases where the action was taken by unanimous consent.

I'm not sure that the minutes should say that the request is granted, under RONR. Statute may provide otherwise. If a committee was discharged as a result of a two thirds vote, the minutes should not have to note that.

Yes, executive session.

A point of order may be raised to demand that a rule be enforced. While that might, incidentally, "show the others just how many rules and how often, are being broken, and also to show that a chair is grossly negligent in their duties of knowing, implementing and enforcing the rules of order," the purpose is to enforce the rules.