Sid Grice

8 hours ago, Guest Charlie said:

It has been the practice in my organization to require 3 seconds for certain motions.

Out of curiosity. If only certain motions required 3 seconds, does that mean that other motions require less than 3 second? If so, how does your organization determine which motions require 3, and which motions does not? 

The post above mine have already answered your question, but I would like to understand why your organization created such a rule, and what was its intent in doing so.

Thank you.

For clarification purposes; Is the term "in camera" session being substituted for Executive Session? or could it be used as a substitute for Committee of the Whole?  

The person, group, or organization which named the person as director would be a good starting point. But, as mentioned, this is not a parliamentary question, so my response is more of a personal suggestion.

2 hours ago, Chris Harrison said:

Still don't see it available on Kindle or in the Google Play Store.  Can't say anything about anywhere else.

I did find in the Play Store an app for "NAPMobile" issued in May of this year by Cerenimbus.  It claims to be the "Official app of the National Association of Parliamentarians".  Not sure if it is legitimate.

The NAPMobile app provides information about NAP, a self study guide, and a vote calculator. Would be nice to include a searchable database of the "In Brief" guide, or maybe even a link to this forum at some time in the future.

It might serve beneficial for you to check your bylaws. There may be requirements related to the secretary position at your meetings.

Keep in mind that I am still in the learning stage, I would think call for the order of the day would have been more appropriate. To move to consider the previous question, when no question is pending, might have been improper.  When you postponed the motion to a specific time (after lunch), you made the postponed motion an order of business to be reintroduced. 

I am sure, or at least hope for, one of the more knowledgeable members to confirm/discredit my reply.

5 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

 

1 hour ago, Guest Member X said:

...but recently we change it to English. 

I can offer no better advice than what has already been given. But, I am curious as to how the change was handled. Did it go through the motion process, or did someone simply claim it to be equivalent to the original version?

I do not see where these questions were ever asked, and I hope Banksmom2008 would be willing to answer them.

1. Are the bylaws you are reading today, the same bylaws from 1.5 years ago? In other words, has there been a revision to the bylaws since the "Executive Board" meeting?

2. Does your bylaws permit the terms "Board of Directors" and "Executive Board" to be used interchangeably?

3. Were the 2 committee chair members, not currently listed as members of the board, actual members of the board 1.5 years ago? 

A lot can change in a 1.5 year time frame. I am just trying to get a complete picture of the situation, in case I should one day face the same situation.

I appreciate all rebuttal from members of this forum. It is through those rebuttals that I am able to gain a more in-depth understanding.

3 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

I don't understand the concern.  If a motion to refer has been debated at length, and then, just before the vote to refer, someone moves the previous question, it has virtually no effect.  The motion had been fully debated, and the assembly was ready for the question.  So whether the previous question is ordered or not makes no difference--the vote on the motion to refer will take place in either case.  If it passes, the motion is referred, if not, the motion is still pending before the assembly.  Whether it is still debatable or not depends on how the motion for the previous question was phrased.

Nothing is voided.  The debate was completed, and will inform everyone's decision on whether or not to support the motion to refer, so nothing has been wasted.

What am I missing?

I misunderstood the original post. What I read was that the chair was not wanting to waste time with having to repeatedly assist a member in properly formatting his motions.

2 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

It was a bit confusing but it sounds like Sid Grace is thinking that the ordering of the previous question would cause an immediate vote on the main motion.

 

I am still learning, and I apologize for overthinking the issue.

Question: How could there be no quorum, if the meeting was never called to order? Wouldn't the determination for lack of quorum be established at the beginning time for the meeting?

21 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

I'm assuming that when you say "I'm curious about the previous suggestion", you are referring to Mr.Katz's suggestion in his post immediately preceding yours that a motion to refer might be in order.

I suppose a motion for the previous question  made immediately after the motion  to refer could hinder the progress of the meeting, but I think the motion for the previous question would  be more likely to speed things up since the motion to refer is debatable.  This would be especially so if the members seem inclined to want to simply kill the motion and be done with it.  In fact, RONR suggests that option on page 173 at lines 4-13.   Perhaps I'm not understanding your concern.

Yes, that is the comment I was referring to. Since he is more seasoned that myself, I felt it inappropriate to address him directly.

My concern would be that the motion to refer, which is debatable, could lead to a lengthy debate. Then, just before the motion is actually referred, the motion for the previous question could be made, essentially voiding all debate, and time would have been wasted. This may sound like a worse case scenario, but in consideration the potential, I had reservations of using such motion.

Question: Would P.172 ll. 26-35  and P.173 ll.1-2 be useful?

When researching for my own answer to this situation, P.172 ll.33-35 looked promising.

From what I seem to understand, the mover can make an incomplete motion, the chair could seek assistance from other members to help make it complete before he states the question on the motion.

If I am understanding this correctly, P. 39 ll.33-35 and P.40 ll1-2 claims the chair does have a duty to correct the wording of a motion, if needed, but does not state that he must do it alone.

I also am curious about the previous suggestion, and wish for better understanding. If a motion to refer were made, and another member moves the Previous Question, would this still stall the progress of the meeting?

Disclaimer: I am still studying the rules, so if any of this is inappropriate, please omit.

Excuse my intrusion. I am asking these questions of the original question, for clarification purposes and as a means to better understand the answer(s).

Q1. "3 previous  monthly meetings cancelled".  Would P.474 ll.31-35 , and P.475 ll.1-7 apply here? (quarterly Time Interval)

Q2. "12 weeks of executive board  meetings minutes". Would P.487 ll.13-24 also apply?  (executive board report)

I was going to start a new thread, but was concerned that reference to this thread would cause complications.

Thank you

8 minutes ago, Guest A Brown said:

That's what is nuts.  We have an official parliamentarian sitting next to the chair.  Who has a copy of RR.

Excuse the intrusiveness of my post, but maybe directing that person to this forum may be beneficial to the organization. I have been reading this forum for awhile, and the benefits have been extremely valuable. 

Please bear with me, as I am still in the learning phase. Doesn't the entire Robert's Rules manual place a focus on using proper decorum. From what I have read, or more importantly, what I have not, is that each member of an assembly should speak in an affirmative tone. To openly attempt to overrule someone, or something, might place more emphasis on the negative. Instead, keeping with proper decorum, state the positive, and use the voting process to reject (indirectly overruling the previous decision).