Atul Kapur

If, last month, the motion was moved, seconded, and stated by the chair, then it was in the assembly's hands last month. If that is the case, I assume it was (a) being discussed at last month's meeting when the meeting adjourned, or (b) was postponed to this month's meeting. If, on the other hand, the motion was "moved" last month with the intention from the start that it would only be debated at this month's meeting, then the mover effectively just gave "notice of motion" last month's meeting. In that case, if the person who gave notice is not present this month, any other member can move the motion. It sounds, from your wording, that your union has a particular custom or Special Rule of Order regarding the introduction of motions.

As I understand it, GOTO cannot result in a motion, at least not for the current meeting. The motion to Commit or Refer can also be a main motion, which it would be in the situation described here. (p. 168, lines 29-35). I'll start the waxing process :-) One example where I've seen it work very well is a national medical association where they wanted to have free discussion to explore multiple facets of a subject. It worked very well for them and they have continued to use it.

I disagree. A subject can be referred to the Committee of the Whole (CotW) as it could be referred to any committee; there is no limitation that only main motions can be referred and I can't find any mention that the CotW's purpose is limited to recommending amendments to the main motion. Page 531, lines 22-24 talk about "referring a subject" to CotW, not limiting it to a specific motion. Page 532, lines 4-7 give the form of the motion (certain options omitted) as follows: "MEMBER (obtaining the floor): I move to go into a committee of the whole to take under consideration ...(stating the subject)." in this case, training practices.

The word "question" means the motion (specifically the question is "Shall the motion be adopted?"). The sentence you quote refers to Informal Consideration of the motion. It is a very different meaning than a question / answer type of dialogue.

The monthly financial report should not be "accepted" either. To accept a report is the same as to adopt it. Unless there are any questions based on the report, the Chair should just move on to the next item of business. Page 477, lines 6-10 describe the "Treasurer's report" and says that "Such a report requires no action by the assembly." "No action of acceptance by the assembly is required -- or proper -- on a financial report of the treasurer unless it is of sufficient importance, as an annual report, to be referred to auditors." (p. 479, lines 5-8)

Isn't the appointment of the Nominations Committee (with the ineligible member) a continuing breach as it violates the bylaws?

You had not indicated earlier that " A mass mailing, as opposed to a meeting, for bylaw amendments is authorized in our bylaws." (or, if you did, I missed it). Any further comments would need you to provide the exact wording of the sections of your bylaws that authorize mass mailings to make decisions and it would be helpful to have the exact wording of the section on amending your bylaws.

I agree that notice is required. However, I am not sure why two weeks is suggested as the cutoff for adequate notice. RONR says "a reasonable time in advance" (p.4, line 29). It would be a matter of judgement whether four days is reasonable.

I had thought about suggesting a SRO, but it wouldn't necessarily solve the issue of debating the topic ad nauseam. A motion to Suspend the Rules which prevent re-introduction of the motion is not debatable. However, the tenacious member could move to Amend the Special Rule of Order, which would be debatable and requires only a majority of the entire membership (or, for completeness, a 2/3 vote with previous notice). All of these options would appear to be moot if a majority is in favour of moving, as indicated by the 4-3 vote mentioned above.

What is the rationale for recording in the minutes a motion that was never seconded? I don't understand why it isn't treated the same way as a withdrawn motion.

From the Glossary of Bourinot's Rules of Order, a Canadian authority:

Thanks. I came across that passage last night. It raises a question about the clause highlighted above. What is the practical distinction between a motion that is not seconded and one that has never been made?

The confusion seems to arise from the Chair's wording that the motion "failed" due to lack of a second. This is inaccurate. Page 36, lines 3-6 make clear that if there is no second, then the motion has never been placed before the assembly (which is done when the Chair States the motion after it has been moved, seconded, and is deemed in order by the Chair). Since the unseconded motion never officially existed, there is no restriction on bringing up the motion again. In short, a motion that was not seconded never officially existed. That is different than it failing.