Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Daniel H. Honemann

Moderators
  • Content Count

    8,121
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Daniel H. Honemann

Profile Information

  • Location:
    Timonium, Maryland

Recent Profile Visitors

7,932 profile views
  1. You will find a rather brief discussion of this here. I don't remember having seen the article in the NP to which you refer, and so I express no opinion concerning it.
  2. One very good reason, by my standards, is that I'm not sure I know why General Robert inserted it in the first place, and then kept repeating it (as have my predecessors). Without this knowledge, deleting it runs the very real risk of triggering unforeseen, adverse consequences. I strongly disagree that this is the case.
  3. What continues to be suggested is that we should do away altogether with a rule that has been in effect since 1876. I'm not prepared to do so based on nothing more than the views and concerns expressed here. If an assembly feels that its members should be allowed to speak against their own motions, it is free to adopt a rule saying so. I'm quite certain that not many have felt a need to do so.
  4. What you are suggesting is that perhaps we should do away altogether with a rule that has been in effect since 1876. I'm not prepared to do so based on nothing more than I have seen.
  5. What, exactly, would you prefer the rule to be? Should any adopted amendment, no matter how innocuous, mean that the maker of the motion may now speak against it?
  6. For those who are interested, the rule that "[t}he maker of a motion, though he can vote against it, cannot speak against his own motion" first appeared in the 2nd edition. When writing this edition (published in 1876 very shortly after the 1st), General Robert tacked this sentence on to the very end of Section 34, and it (the sentence, not its location) remained unchanged in later editions until modified and expanded upon in the 7th edition. As previously indicated, it is my opinion that this rule remains applicable no matter whether, or to what extent, the motion may have been amended.
  7. Yes No. It requires a two-thirds vote because it involves a suspension of the rules.
  8. They can do so only if they are members of the board.
  9. Two quotes from RONR, 12th ed., may be of assistance here: "To modify the rules governing what is regularly to be included in the minutes requires adoption of a special rule of order, although a majority vote may direct the inclusion of specific additional information in the minutes of a particular meeting. (48:3) "When a committee report is of great importance or should be recorded to show the legislative history of a measure, the assembly can order it “to be entered in the minutes,” in which case the secretary copies it in full in, or attaches a copy of it to, the minutes." (48:5
  10. As previously indicated by others, the answer to this question is a resounding NO unless your bylaws expressly confer such an extraordinary power on your election committee.
  11. When the committee reported its recommendation that the motion not be adopted, the motion became pending automatically (RONR, 12th ed., 51:40-41).
  12. I'm inclined to doubt that "the angels of right" are on your side here. Tread carefully.
×
×
  • Create New...