Joshua Katz

What point of order should be raised that would require more than "the point of order is not well taken?"

General rule: dissent is interesting for educational value and thought process. For the final answer, listen to Mr. Honemann. I still don't understand his answer, but I trust it is more correct than mine.

Well, I agree - because the action being taken is postpone indefinitely. It doesn't really matter what motion we're killing.

Members should not be ruled out of order. Their actions, though, might be. Points of order should be included, together with the ruling of the chair and any stated reasons, see p. 470 line 15.

As far as I can tell, that passage envisions a main motion pending, and then moving to suspend the rules and postpone the pending motion indefinitely. This doesn't have the illogical effects it would with Amend.

Which would have the effect, if we had somehow decided to vote on all pending motions at once, of defeating the motion.

No, presuming the board of directors was elected in the manner called for by your bylaws, there is no need for any further action.

Except we use "caused" all the time, in contexts where you do need a Z. "Better management caused the stock to rise." Okay, but you also needed a working stock market, functional roads, supermarkets, fuel supplies...

This seems to assume that "caused" means something less than I take it to mean. I think the meaning here is included, but doesn't cover the ground.

The Secretary calls the meeting to order, and presides over the election of chair pro-tem, who presides over the meeting.

I agree with Mr. Mervosh that no one is being excluded since there is a parliamentary way around the problem. I would add that RONR doesn't have much to say about this, because it's about meetings of two organizations which happen to have overlapping membership - there's no rule against two different organizations scheduling conflicting meetings. However, I think, personally, that this is a silly decision by the programming committees, and that they should be encouraged to change it, perhaps with the added information that the membership will, in any event, change it via the process described.

You'll have to take that up with Mr. Brown, I suppose. He has always been much better at finding ambiguities than I am.

In addition to what Mr. Mervosh said, unless the circumstances are wildly different than what I am imagining, a motion to not give the donation would be out of order, since it is a motion to take no action, and its adoption would have no effect.

Hmm, I'm not sure I follow. What else does being compelled because it is the right thing to do, mean, than that there is a duty to do so? Are you saying someone else might think there's a duty, but you don't? I think I would feel compelled to do so, so I must think there's a duty, I suppose.

Doesn't this prove the opposite point, since Paula's bylaws do not continue on this way? There are two meanings of "poorly written." One is that they say things that cause problems. In that case, I (mostly) agree, you follow them and then change them. (If they say something like "a quorum can never be attained, I might get more creative.) The other is that they are ambiguous, which I think is what Mr. Brown is arguing. In that case, if there's two perfectly good interpretations (I'm not convinced there are here, I'm just saying) I agree with taking the less absurd answer - as does RONR. If one agrees there's an ambiguity here, I think it's rather clear that, as Mr. Brown points out, the consequences of the mandatory interpretation are absurd. I disagree with the claim that it's a rule of order, though. If the prohibition on write-in votes is not, then I don't see how this rule, which prescribes how one gives up an office, is a rule of order.

I agree. There, I finally said something Mr. Honemann agrees with (unless he, unlike Winston Churchill, objects to what I just typed, or disagrees with the claim that I agree).

If the chair fails to state the motion, I'd say a point of order to that effect should be raised, precisely because, if it isn't, the chair will have killed the motion by simply not stating it - at least, if the chair then moves on to other business.

If by 'advisory vote' you mean vote without binding effect, then no, such a vote is not in order at a meeting; it would be akin to a straw poll,which is prohibited. (What you do outside of meetings is none of RONR's concern, for the most part.) However, I suspect that might be exactly what you mean, since you say rather than yes or no, and such a vote would still involve voting yes or no. If that is not what you mean, can you please clarify further so I can understand your question?

I still don't understand what you want to accomplish, though. If you have a main motion, an amendment, and a secondary amendment pending, what does it mean to avoid taking a vote on each subsidiary amendment? If we vote on all three at once, there's no way for me to express any opinion other than "the motion should be adopted, after being modified by the amendment, which in turn is modified by the secondary amendment" or "the motion should not be adopted, and also shouldn't be changed." How would I vote if I wanted to adopt the motion as originally made?

I believe this is another reason the people pushing the plan did not wish to nominate him.

No, it's just my habit to try not to answer more than is asked, in order to reduce the likelihood (high enough as it is) that I'll make a mistake.

It is in order to authorize up to a certain amount. (It grates on my nerves, though, to hear people say "I motion...") Unless, of course, you have customized rules to the contrary, or a sunshine law requiring something different.

Well, fix the time to which to adjourn is privileged if another motion is pending, and adjourn is debatable if the assembly is set to adjourn at a fixed time, so you could move to adjourn at a specific time, then move to adjourn prior to that, then speak in debate on that motion and move to set the time to which to adjourn. Or you could just raise a point of order that the motion to reconsider and enter is being abused in a dilatory fashion.

If your parliamentary authority is RONR, then you may gain the floor for one purpose and then do something else, such as speaking in debate and then making a motion.

Fair point. I had assumed the chair declared it adopted, and then said "hmm, I don't know about this whole motion-thing, I'd better ask a parliamentarian."