Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Daniel H. Honemann

Moderators
  • Content Count

    8,309
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Daniel H. Honemann

Profile Information

  • Location:
    Timonium, Maryland

Recent Profile Visitors

8,160 profile views
  1. Always a good idea, and thanks for volunteering to take care of his invoice. ๐Ÿ™‚
  2. The proposed special rule is: โ€œ A member Who speaks in debate is not permitted to move the previous question as part of his speech or at the conclusion of his speechโ€œ. Is it possible for a member to move the previous question as part of his speech without moving the previous question at the conclusion of his speech?
  3. No cop outs allowed. ๐Ÿ™‚ You are at a meeting at which the events described in 12:82-88 occur, the motion to substitute which is put to a vote as described in 12:88 is adopted, and then the main motion, as thus amended, is defeated. You've changed your mind and are now in favor of the motion as originally made and thus want to move to reconsider whatever votes need to be reconsidered in order to get back to being able to salvage the motion as originally made (you voted in favor of MEMBER X's motion to amend it as described in 12:83, which was adopted). How, exactly, do you word your m
  4. No. A member making a motion to reconsider the votes on two or more connected motions need only to have voted on the prevailing side when the vote was taken on the motion which will be reconsidered first if reconsideration takes place. RONR, 12th ed., 37:30 But as has been noted, MEMBER X's motion was neither phrased as nor treated as a motion to substitute, so why should we pay any attention to this observation in 12:80? Well, I suspect that the first vote to be reconsidered should be the vote taken on Motion Z (it's early morning now), and I'll admit that I don't real
  5. A couple of things continue to interest me about this, however, which may (or may not) be worth mentioning. First of all, looking at the example in 12:82-90, it seems to me that MEMBER X got away with moving what really amounted to a motion to substitute (which would not have been in order) by phrasing it in the form of a motion to amend by striking out and inserting words. As a consequence, when the assembly finally got around to voting on MEMBER A's motion to substitute, it was a motion to substitute MEMBER A's motion for a motion which was quite different from the originally moved main
  6. As you may have noted, it turns out that Mr. Elsman and I don't really disagree at all, we were simply answering different questions. Not an unusual event in this forum. ๐Ÿ™‚
  7. It seems that this is what was intended, which is why I prefaced my question with the statement that "I gather that TBear76 wants us to use the exact example in 12:82-89, assuming that the motion to substitute was adopted and then assuming that the main motion. as amended, was defeated."
  8. I doubt that Mr. Merritt will agree. I certainly do not. If a motion is made to reconsider the votes on the main motion (which was rejected) and on the motion to substitute (which was adopted), and this motion to reconsider is adopted, the question will recur on the motion to substitute as described in 12:88. If this motion is then rejected, the question will then recur on the pending main motion as then amended, which was "That the Parish Federation undertake a campaign to raise funds for the construction and equipping of a new service wing for the Parish House.โ€ This is not the original
  9. I gather that TBear76 wants us to use the exact example in 12:82-89, assuming that the motion to substitute was adopted and then assuming that the main motion. as amended, was defeated. If this is the case, I don't think that it is precisely correct to say that "When the assembly adopted the motion to amend by substitution, it effectively decided not to do what the original main motion proposed." The original main motion proposed "That the Parish Federation undertake the construction and equipping of a new service wing for the Parish House, to be financed as far as possible by a mortgage
  10. This is because parliamentary law, like Ohm's law, is not the sort of law that lawyer's deal with.
  11. If it's a motion, the motion is lost. If it's an election, vote again.
  12. This is because the rules contained in Robert's Rules of Order are rules designed for use in deliberative assemblies.
  13. Well, I can confirm the fact that there is no Official Interpretation 2006-14. As to 2006-21, I frankly don't remember what the change was that was made by the 11th edition which prompted the warning concerning its invalidity in 2011-1, but if I remember it at some later time, I'll be sure to let you know. ๐Ÿ™‚ I admit that we need to do something about updating these Official Interpretations.
  14. Official Interpretation 2006-13 remains valid. RONR, 12th ed., 49:7, 56:41.
×
×
  • Create New...