Dan Honemann

But not many, I'm sure.

In my opinion: 1. Yes, you should include the making of motion A in the minutes of that portion of the regular meeting that preceded the executive session because that is when it was made. These minutes should also reflect the fact that the meeting went into executive session while this motion was pending. These minutes should also reflect the time of adjournment, even although the meeting was adjourned while in executive session. 2. Amendment B should not be included in the minutes of that portion of the regular meeting that preceded the executive session. This proposed amendment, the fact that it was ruled out of order by the chair and the reasons given by the chair for this ruling, and the fact that this ruling was sustained on appeal, should all be included in the minutes covering that portion of the meeting that was held in executive session. 3. The fact that motion A was postponed to the next meeting should be reflected only in the minutes covering that portion of the meeting that was held in executive session, and these minutes should also reflect the time of adjournment.

And I was under the impression that no motion has as yet been made. 🙂

See you there.

Well, there can be no doubt but that your district convention can't suspend the rules of your State Central Committee (unless, of course, the rules of your State Central Committee say you can). 🙂

It's just common sense, isn't it? In any event, see General Robert's response in Q&A 184 on pages 476-77 in PL.

I think it bears upon the question as to whether or not the proposed revision will be open to amendment going beyond the extent of changes included in the proposed revision.

But what was it that prompted you to say that this committee "went past its charge, and created a completely new set of bylaws (a revision)"? (Emphasis added.)

Yes, I think this is exactly right. The problem is that the current wording of this sentence is a bit awkward. 🙂

Well, what makes more sense to me is to understand that motions to make unanimous a ballot vote that was not unanimous are not inherently improper.

If, at this convention, the motion that was made to suspend the rules in order to permit election by plurality vote was adopted, it seems to me that anyone declared elected, even if elected only by a plurality vote, must be understood to have been duly elected. As a matter of fact, I think that anyone declared elected at the convention only by a plurality vote must be understood to have been duly elected even if no motion had been adopted to suspend the rules. In other words, I think that rules relating to the vote required to elect or to adopt a motion are rules of order, and that the rule that a majority vote is required to elect or to adopt a motion is not a fundamental principle of parliamentary law.

I agree with Mr. Wynn that it is first necessary to obtain all relevant details concerning exactly what it was that this committee was charged with doing, in view of the fact that it has been stated that the committee "went past its charge, and created a completely new set of bylaws (a revision)." This thread may be of interest in this connection.

Well, your committee itself should be involved only in the production of its own report, and not in the production of minority reports.

Oh, I don't think this interpretation of the meaning of 4a will fly when read in conjunction with what is said in 4b.

Welcome back, Tim. You've been missed!

Why is this something which is of concern to you as Chair of the Platform Committee? Isn't the question as to how multiple minority reports are to be handled during the convention one which the convention's assembly will have to decide for itself? I would think so.

A member of your board may make a motion to amend the motion which was adopted by striking out the portion of it which directs the money to go to the designated charity and inserting, in its place, something else. Such a motion requires only a majority vote for its adoption if previous notice is given of the intent to make it. If previous notice is not given, it will require either a two-thirds vote or a vote of a majority of the entire membership of your board for its adoption. See RONR, 11th ed., pages 305-310, for details concerning this motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted.

Well, no, I do not think that it is too late to raise a point of order, but if, when the point of order is raised, it is then determined that the motion was adopted by a two-thirds vote, the adoption of the motion will stand. This assumes that when you said that it "passed with around a 80 % majority vote" this was just your estimation as to the percentage of the votes cast that were in favor of adoption, and not based upon an actual count.

I think this is essentially correct as well, but I do not know why it is said that "the standard order of business applies because they usually have regular meetings quarterly." The adjourned meeting is a continuance of the session of the preceding meeting, and so its order of business is to continue with the order of business which was controlling the preceding meeting.

Well, first of all you need to determine if your organization's governing documents give your board the power to expel these disruptive members. Nothing in RONR gives your board this power.

Well, among other things, when a vote is reconsidered the motion being reconsidered is brought back before the assembly in the same position it occupied the moment before it was voted on originally. This may mean that all sorts of things that happened during its original consideration may have an effect upon its reconsideration. This is not at all the case when a motion is renewed.

Although the vote by which this motion was defeated cannot be reconsidered, it doesn't matter because the defeated motion can simply be made again (renewed).

Unlike the situation in Official Interpretation 2006-18, this was not an instance in which the motion under consideration was a motion to Rescind or to Amend Something Previously Adopted. The motion which was made here was not in order because it conflicted with a motion previously adopted and still in force. Such improper motions, if declared to be adopted, are null and void unless adopted by the vote required to amend or rescind the motion previously adopted, and a point of order concerning their validity can be raised at any time. If and when such a point of order is raised, the motion so adopted should be declared to be null and void unless it is determined, at that time, that it had been adopted by the vote required to amend or rescind the previously adopted motion.

Yes. "Apart from a motion to Rescind or to Amend Something Previously Adopted (35), no main motion is in order that conflicts with a motion previously adopted at any time and still in force." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 111) Assuming that there is a legitimate question as to whether or not this motion was adopted by at least a two-thirds vote, a point of order concerning its validity can be raised at any time (RONR, 11th ed., p. 251). Whether or not this is what happened at the meeting held two weeks later is not clear.

In other words, guess again. 🙂