Joshua Katz

You would move to amend the agenda while it is pending for adoption at the start of the meeting, if the item you wish to deal with is not on the proposed agenda.

Well, interpreting your rules themselves is a different issue, and one only your organization can do, but we may be able to give advice if you can give us the exact language of the rule in question. But, if the rules do provide that, then yes. Presumably, at some point your organization decided that was a good idea. If it's no longer working, the organization could amend the rules.

Your organization may not call them rules of order, but it has some rules (such as the one you mentioned) that are about the conduct of rules in meetings, so they are rules of order. Here are the sorts of rules, ranked by precedence (you may, of course, not have all of these): Applicable procedural laws Corporate charter/article of incorporation Constitution/Bylaws Special rules of order (that is, rules of order adopted by your organization) Rules of order (Robert's goes here if your organization has adopted it) Standing rules It sounds like it may be the cas

Your organization's rules of order will take precedence over RONR. Your standing rules will not. The type of thing you are discussing here is a rule of order, and would govern over RONR.

"Any questions that were unfinished business at the previous meeting . . . taken up in the order in which they were due to come up at that meeting as indicated under (a) and (c)." Nothing first makes its appearance, so to speak, as unfinished business under (b). At the previous meeting, it was there because of (a) or (c). (It was not there under (d) because, if it were, it came up automatically at that meeting and thus would not be unfinished business now.) So to determine how to order such items, we look to the order in which they appeared previously, i.e. the order given in (a) and (c).

I thought it said "election." No, RONR does not require any election committees.

If the bylaws require a ballot election, then yes. Otherwise, the chair will simply declare the lone candidate elected.

Let's back up. In a standard deliberative assembly, a second is required to place business before the assembly so that the chair knows that it's worth considering. A seconder is not saying he agrees with the motion, simply that he agrees it is worth considering. There is no circumstance where having a second is sufficient to pass a motion, because they arise at different steps of the process. Once a motion is seconded, it will be debated by the assembly. Then the chair will put the question to a vote. (There are circumstances where the demand of a single member requires something to happen, bu

It sounds correct, but I think we may be able to make our answers more tailored to the question if we ask you a question - why does this question arise? What are the concerns leading you here?

I agree that this is a question (and the fact that the rules are just a composition of precedents), but I think it goes to weight.

Well, when the parliamentary authority (and your own rules, of course) are silent, other manuals can be consulted as persuasive, so I don't see any reason the Senate "manual" can't be. But it's a separate question how much weight to assign it; in most cases, very little, I'd think. But in the end, the organization will decide what to do. If I might ask, what's the situation that leads you to consider this?

I give up. Apparently, I am never going to make my fingers type this correctly. OP, listen to the others. As Scalia might suggest, I will go hide my head in a bag.

Ugh. I misread the situation. Yes, I agree, it would be within scope of notice to increase the time but not decrease it.

As an example, it would be within the scope of notice, I think, to amend this to increase the 98 hours, but not to decrease it.

Well, I think we could be more helpful if we knew what this 30 day rule said. What, exactly, is the rule in your bylaws? But, in general, here is some guidance. Under the rules in RONR, a motion that requires notice may be amended within the scope of notice. (Similarly, a motion that does not require notice, but whose adoption is made easier with notice, may be amended within the scope of notice without becoming harder to pass.) What is the scope of notice? It is things that people receiving the notice would have fair notice of. So, for instance, suppose you have no dues, and you propose