Dan Honemann

But it doesn't because 33:18 tells us that, after a motion has been withdrawn, the situation is the same as if it had never been made.

And so?

Because one of the things that was done was that a main motion was made by a member.

If a main motion dies for lack of a second, no decision (within the meaning of 49:7) has been made by the assembly. 4:11 makes it clear that a member must be sure that a motion is seconded if he wishes the assembly to go on record as having rejected it. There is no inconsistency in this respect. 33:18 tells us that, after a motion has been withdrawn, the situation is as though the motion had never been made.

If this is a meeting of the board, the answer is no. If it is a meeting of all the owners, the answer is yes.

So what I posted at 6:07 AM this morning doesn't suffice?

Yes, you have this right. This is the general rule. Here I think you have in mind the rule stated in the last sentence of 41:54, but you need to note that this rule applies only in instances in which special orders set for different hours have been made at the same time, but this seldom, if ever, occurs except in the case of adoption of an agenda.

Yes, I certainly meant "special orders". I've made the change.

41:65 relates to taking up topics in an agenda. The procedure described in 41:65 applies whenever special rules orders are made at the same time for different hours, since in such instances it is implied that the vote on each one will be taken when the hour for the next one arrives, as noted in the last sentence of 41:54.

Depends on who you ask. 🙂

Yeah, like in Table II, Motion 3. 🙂

Well, I think it more accurate to say that your view of this is completely refuted and not merely "confounded" by what is said in 41:59 and elsewhere in RONR. I think 41:61 is very clearly telling us that, if an assembly's prescribed order of business is the "standard" order of business prescribed in RONR, adoption of an agenda specifying a specific hour at which to adjourn will require a two-thirds vote.

This statement is far too simplistic to mean much of anything at all, but in any event, please keep in mind that if there is any apparent conflict between what is said in the main body of RONR and what is found in the tables in the back of the book, it is the former that you are to rely upon and not the latter.

Nobody has said that adjournment, when included in an adopted agenda, is an "item of business". 41:58-59 very clearly tell us that it is a "subject" which will be either a special order or a general order. I don't see how RONR could possibly be made any clearer in his regard.

I do not agree. 41:58 By a single vote, a series of special orders or general orders—or a mixture of both—can be made; such a series is called an agenda. When an hour is assigned to a particular subject in an agenda, that subject is thereby made a special order unless, by footnote or other means, it is stated that the time is intended merely for guidance, in which case the subject is only a general order. Subjects for which no hour is specified in an agenda are general orders. 41:59 In an agenda, often an hour is assigned only to such subjects as the calls to order, recesses, adjournments, and particularly important items of business where it is desired to give the members greater assurance that the matter will not be considered before that time. These, then, are special orders for the time stated, and a strict adherence to these times provides a protection to the members and invited speakers, who often come from great distances. Occasionally, a time is assigned for every item on the agenda. While this practice may be necessary in some cases, the resulting loss of flexibility often outweighs any benefits that may be gained.

I think that, as far as RONR is concerned, as a general rule the answer to this question is no. According to RONR, 12th ed., 47:3 (emphasis supplied): "An office carries with it only the rights necessary for executing the duties of the office, and it does not deprive a member of the society of his rights as a member." and in 47:20 we are told that: "All of the duties of the presiding officer described above relate to the function of presiding over the assembly at its meetings. In addition, in many organized societies, the president has duties as an administrative or executive officer; but these are outside the scope of parliamentary law, and the president has such authority only insofar as the bylaws provide it." I leave to you to decide if these provisions have any applicability to your particular situation, and caution you to remember that applicable law takes precedence over the rules in RONR wherever there is any conflict.

Nothing in Robert's Rules requires that the full name of the mover of a motion be recorded in the minutes.

Yes. Continued voting is required until one of the options receives a majority (more than half) of the votes cast. RONR, 12th ed., 44:1

Hopefully, there is more about this in your bylaws than what you have quoted. I don't see how members who are unable to attend the meeting are to present their ballots to the secretary at the meeting. Perhaps this is the reason why a ballot box was created, and someone is to collect these ballots and present them to the secretary at the meeting in behalf of the absent members. I join Mr. Novosielski in his request for more details.

But if it is none of these, I don't think this pre-motion presentation is in order unless the "small board" rules are in effect.

If an agenda is not properly adopted, it has no force or effect.

I suppose that's because he doesn't really have any.

Ah! Now I get it, and I think you make a good point. It would seem to be advisable to use some word other than "charges" in 19:7.

Okay, but I still don't understand what bearing this has on arriving at the correct answers to the questions which you raised.

I'm not sure I know what this is getting at.