George Mervosh

I'm not sure I understand this example. Other than the fact a motion to lay a pending question on the table is almost always out of order because it's being misused http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#12 , was the person who moved the previous question actually assigned the floor by the chair? If so it should be in order, at least under RONR since RONR doesn't recognize a procedure where there are a list of additional members recognized to speak. The chair recognizes members one at a time.

Why are write-in votes invalid? Do the bylaws say so? Either way 22 votes were still cast and 10 for candidate A doesn't cut it.

Yes the assembly can agree to consider the motion without amendments but not by including that language in the text of the motion itself.

If the goal is simply to adopt a main motion without debate or amendment, a motion to suspend the rules is the proper way to accomplish that: "When the object is to adopt a motion without debate or amendment, the form is: MEMBER A (obtaining the floor): I move to suspend the rules and adopt [or "agree to"] the following resolution: "Resolved, That ..." (Second.) RONR (11th ed.), p. 266 Or did I misunderstand the intended goal?

Ultimately it's up to the assembly what they do with the motion to adopt. It is always the case that the assembly has a right to amend a main motion placed before it. The assembly could move to suspend the rules and adopt the document without debate or amendment - "When the object is to adopt a motion without debate or amendment, the form is: MEMBER A (obtaining the floor): I move to suspend the rules and adopt [or "agree to"] the following resolution: "Resolved, That ..." (Second.) " RONR (11th ed.), p. 266 Or, they can can move to refer it back to the committee with instructions at any time prior to voting on the document. It's simply up to the assembly. The committee has no say in the matter.

That's an interesting way to read that quote.

Yes. "Members of the nominating committee are not barred from becoming nominees for office themselves. To make such a requirement would mean, first, that service on the nominating committee carried a penalty by depriving its members of one of their privileges; and second, that appointment or election to the nominating committee could be used to prevent a member from becoming a nominee. " RONR (11th ed.), p. 433

"Status and Seating of Alternates; Replacement Procedure. Alternates registered as such are usually provided with badges of a different color or shape from those of delegates and are seated in sections apart from them." RONR (11th ed.), p. 604 Your rules may provide otherwise.

So we can take the guy's word for it if the original vote was by secret ballot and if he's willing to waive that secrecy in moving to reconsider the vote, but not here. Hmmmm. Which brings us right back to what Mr. Gerber said:

I agree with Mr. Martin, PRP, and it seems you have everything covered. Enjoy your convention!

And I hope Dr. Mark will make sure accommodations are made for those in the assembly who cannot stand or go to a microphone in order to make a motion or enter into debate. But I digress.

No vote is necessary or proper on the final form of the minutes. After any corrections are dealt with the presiding officer simply declares the minutes approved [or approved as corrected]

But you can just register as Zev. Full names aren't required. Just ask J.J.

No rule in RONR prohibits it.

No rule in RONR requires an assembly to list those who attended a meeting whether it's held in executive session or not, with one exception - The minutes should note "the fact that the regular chairman and secretary were present or, in their absence, the names of the persons who substituted for them" RONR (11th ed), p. 468.

I remember that Mr. Mountcastle was so adamant about not exeeding 5000 posts he posted his next 5000 or so as a guest.

For those of us who hate to type it's heaven sent.

It is one of the footnotes in Section 25, yes, but in the index under "debate" you'll see "nonmembers, 263 "

To allow a non-member to speak in debate on a pending motion? - "*In contrast, the rules may be suspended to allow a nonmember to speak in debate. " RONR (11th ed.), p. 263fn

The President, but the rules may be suspended by a 2/3 vote to permit another member to preside. Just that motion should liven up the meeting or get their attention.

See http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#10

The President.

Maybe Dr. Stackpole is using the Deluxe Edition?

If you feel the motion was improperly adopted because it violates some provision in the bylaws, at the next regular or properly called meeting a point of order can be raised by any of the council members to that effect. The chair's ruling on this point of order can usually be appealed. If, in the end, it is determined a violation of one of the breaches noted on p. 251 has taken place, the action is null and void and there is no need to "cancel" or rescind the adopted motion. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 251 You should also check with the council's attorney on this matter.

No. " A member making a motion embodying something that has just been said by the chair or another member in informal consultation during a meeting should avoid statements such as "I so move," and should himself recite the complete motion that he offers. " RONR (11th ed.), p. 104