Joshua Katz

Agreeing with Mr. Harrison, even if the second motion was out of order, the next meeting is too late to raise a point of order. The motion remains adopted. To bring it up at the next meeting, the member could use rescind or amend something previously adopted, or, if the member voted on the prevailing side and the next meeting is within the same session, reconsider.

Not. Exactly what's going on with this one is not totally clear to me, but as a general rule, incumbents cannot declare that they will remain in office without an election. If your bylaws do not call for a ballot vote, and there is only one qualified candidate, then she will be the only candidate, and will be declared elected by the chair (presumably). If the bylaws do require a balloted vote, then a balloted vote is required.

I'm not clear on it either, but do you have a source on answering questions on other topics not being permitted? For instance, I don't think it's prohibited to say "according to your published materials, you have a choice of turkey, chicken, or vegetable wrap for lunch." But I'm happy to be wrong. (I once went to a court proceeding where one attorney, who had flown in for the hearing, never had a chance to say anything more than "that would be a Friday, Your Honor.")

Well, a good chair really shouldn't ask the parliamentarian to do so and put him in a hard place. After all, if the parliamentarian speaks to the assembly, and the chair then decides otherwise, the parliamentarian loses credibility. So, in general, it's a bad idea. (When I serve as a parliamentarian, one of my requests is that I be in a position to whisper to the chair and be confident that no microphone will pick me up.) But so far as the rules are concerned, I don't see that there are limits to answering questions when the chair so directs, outside of entering into debate on the merits of a question, although I'm hard pressed to think of what anyone would want to ask a parliamentarian other than parliamentary questions. But personally, I tell the chair ahead of time not to put me in that position, and if I'm put in it, I'm not happy, and try to avoid answering if possible. It's not always possible.

I agree, but I'd add that, assuming it is permitted, she still gets only one vote.

It's too late to object, but the parliamentarian shouldn't be making motions either.

Well, a person can nominate himself, whether the election is by ballot or not. I'm not sure what to do with the parenthetical here, though.

This is what I figured was going on, and it is improper. It amounts to debate unrelated to the pending motion. As I commented above, they may briefly make their suggestions, and then they may be quiet and let you make your motion. Your chair should not have allowed this debate - they can debate these points, as appropriate, on a motion to amend (some of these comments relate to things that would not be appropriate as amendments).

Start out with more time for each time. Or you can vote no on the motions to extend (and, prior to the meeting, encourage others to think about doing so as well). You might also want to get to the root issue of why so much time is needed. Are people not coming in with fully-cooked motions? Consider making motions to refer, postpone, or otherwise get them perfected. Are people grandstanding and speaking when there's no persuasive value to what they're saying? Well, if they want to do that, there's no much you can do, except consider restricting who can attend your meetings so that grandstanding has less of a payoff (assuming this is a board meeting of some sort). In other words, figure out why there's so much talking relative to doing.

Good point.

I agree with the rest of what Mr. Kapur says. As to the part dealing with my comments, the key point seems to be: What's more, the member making a suggestion can "quickly rise and, with little or no explanatory comment, informally suggest one or more modifications in the motion, which at this point the maker can accept or reject. . . ." Five minutes of "well I think . . ." bears little resemblance, in my opinion, to what RONR is describing. It's an effort to workshop the motion. Finally, the "process" described in the OP does not sound like one where the mover was fairly given the opportunity to reject changes. So, three suggestions. If the members did as described above, and the OP accepted or rejected the suggestions, this would take about 30 seconds. But it took 5 minutes, so I suspect they were doing something other than quickly and with little or no explanatory comment, informally suggesting modifications. How did the Secretary get involved? None of these "suggestions," if not accepted by the mover, go into the minutes. Which leads me to suspect that the Secretary was just changing the motion as the suggestions came in, without the mover having the chance to accept or reject them. I also suspect, to get over the 5 minute mark, that they likely were debating these suggestions.

Oh, if you keep people there long enough, someone will change his mind...or leave.

And, as a general rule, others don't get to rewrite your motions. The chair should tell them all to shut up while you're making your motion. If they don't like it, they can refuse to second it, vote no, or move to amend. What they can't do is insist on workshopping your motion while you're making it.

I also wonder if the organization has some rule about the chair inviting people.

I do not think there should be a notation. I don't think it matters why it's there, and in fact, such a notation strikes me as akin to the secretary inserting editorial remarks. If they're there, they're there. I suppose it would depend on the exact language of the motion, but what we've been told so far is that the assembly ordered that they be in the draft minutes, and that's been, I think, fully executed. If anything, I could see requiring a suspension of the rules rather than aspa.

In that case: no.

1. It would appear in the minutes of the meeting where the ordering took place. So far as the minutes to which it was ordered, that's what they are now, and no notation is required. Before the ordering and approval happened, they were just notes. For as long as they've been minutes, the item has (I assume) been included. 2. I'm not really sure I understand this part of the question. To my understanding, there are draft minutes (i.e. Secretary's notes) which include certain information. When they are considered for approval, i.e. before they've been approved, a member moves to strike out that information. That's a motion to amend, and it requires a majority vote. If the minutes have been approved, it would require a motion to amend something previously adopted.

Thank you for using this phrase correctly.

When postpone (to a certain time) is pending, the assembly is deciding whether or not it will put off the decision. To move, before that is decided, to send it to someone else, seems illogical to me. We should do one or the other of these, but if the motion to refer is adopted, the motion to postpone would still be pending - i.e. the assembly would be making a decision about a matter which is no longer in its hand. On the other hand, when refer is pending, and postpone is moved and, suppose, adopted - the motion remains in the hand of the assembly, just put off to a later time. To now consider the pending motion to refer makes sense to me. Alternatively, as RONR explains, the hierarchy reflects the steps an assembly would take as it considers a motion. Maybe someone wants to kill it (postpone indefinitely) - but wait, we can try to save it by amending it! But we can't figure out how to amend it - send it to a committee! Well, instead of sending it to a committee, maybe we just want to talk about it between meetings and fix it ourselves - so move to postpone. etc.

There is a paragraph in RONR which endeavors to explain the idea behind precedence. I can't quite recall where it is, though.

I assumed it was to keep people from raising both their hands.

I don't even know how to parse that definition of quorum, let alone what it might mean about voting rights. What is this document - is it your bylaws? What does it say about the types of membership?

Well, there are things in RONR to prevent yes/no votes on elections, and if this person was running unopposed, then, unless your rules say otherwise, she should have been declared elected and should be in office in the first place. As to a person resigning and the board filling the vacancy, it depends on what your bylaws say about filling vacancies. So far as RONR is concerned, it would be up to the body that elected the officer to fill the vacancy, but if your bylaws give the boar the power to do so, then they have the power to do so.

No, but in blue.

Yes, but in this context that is likely a difficult and expensive process. I understand why the OP wants to know if it remains an "agenda item" in the corporate context.