Dan Honemann

Not to my knowledge.

Please note that, under the rules in RONR, matters placed on a consent calendar are not considered in gross, without debate or amendment, unless the special rule of order establishing the consent calendar so provides. This fact is sometimes overlooked when drafting such a special rule of order.

Be nice if you all stopped referring to it as a special rule of order. 🙂

Nothing wrong with it as far as Robert's Rules of Order is concerned.

Well, the chair made a hash of it all, but since no one raised a point of order when the chair declared that "the motion for nomination" (whatever that is) carried, then it carried. If the result of adopting such a motion means that the nominee should be offered the job, then all's well.

Perhaps you had better explain what you mean by a "vote of acclamation". As far as the rules in RONR are concerned, election by acclamation doesn't involve any voting.

Well, apparently that's the way this board does things, so I suppose it is in accordance with its own rules.

Oh my, H.H.H., please don't refer to anything at all dealing with voting in connection with a question concerning determination of the presence of a quorum. Speaker Reed put this issue to rest way back in 1890, and we certainly don't want it cropping up again. 🙂

Well, I suppose this motion to change the starting time will require either a two-thirds vote or a vote of a majority of the entire membership if previous notice (as defined in RONR, 11th ed., on pp. 121-124) has not been given.

Chances are that, if virtually all board members are in attendance after the mid-meeting change of membership, the making and adoption of a motion to rescind the previously adopted money expenditure motion may be the easiest way to achieve the desired result, since the vote of a majority of the entire board, as then constituted, will do the trick (Dr. Stackpole's initial suggestion).

The answer to your question depends upon whether your bylaws prohibit individual members of Group B from endorsing candidates or just Group B itself. You haven't quoted enough of your bylaws for anyone to tell.

Frankly, this advice is so bad it ought to be deleted.

No, nothing in RONR grants the president any such power.

No.

On page 405, we are told that: "A plurality that is not a majority never chooses a proposition or elects anyone to office except by virtue of a special rule previously adopted. If such a rule is to apply to the election of officers, it must be prescribed in the bylaws." When the bylaws prescribe that RONR is the parliamentary authority (using RONR's suggested language), the above quoted rules are effectively incorporated by reference into the bylaws, and so the footnote on page 16 correctly tells us that no special rule of order can validly be adopted providing for election of officers by plurality vote. This, however, does not mean that the rule that a plurality vote that is not a majority never elects anyone to office is a rule which cannot be suspended. It does not make a rule requiring a majority vote for election to office a rule which cannot be suspended. These are not fundamental principles of parliamentary law.

This thread is obviously going nowhere, and ought to stop.

This appears to be an entirely irrelevant observation. Neither is there anything in RONR that qualifies him for serving as president (or parliamentarian, for that matter).

It all began with General Robert himself referring to the first three editions of his book as RO (for Rules of Order), and the fourth edition as ROR (for Rules of Order Revised). He was too modest to include a letter for his own name.

Oh, I suspect that this was just another name given to a motion to suspend the rules that interfere with taking up business out of its proper order, as discussed in RONR on pages 363-64. On second thought, I guess not because both are included in the same list. Sorry about that.

Yes, and I can't imagine why objecting to its consideration was suggested as a proper course of action to take in this event.

Okay, you can tack that on as an exception to your previous post regarding the ineffectiveness of hell or high water.

I suppose adjournment doesn't fall within the category of hell or high waters. 🙂

No.

Two points which may or may not be relevant. Adoption of a special rule of order requires previous notice and a two-thirds vote. If previous notice has not been given, the vote of a majority of the entire membership is required for adoption. As a consequence, if previous notice has not been given, and a majority of the entire membership is not present, erroneous declaration of adoption of such a rule will be null and void, since it violates a rule protecting absentees. Rules fixing the hour and place of meetings are standing rules, not rules of order.

No rule in RONR requires that voting in disciplinary proceedings be by ballot if no member demands a ballot vote.