George Mervosh

The entire sentence reads: " A special meeting does not approve minutes; its minutes should be approved at the next regular meeting." RONR (11th ed.), pp. 473-74. If the group doesn't want to wait until the next regular meeting, it could call a separate special meeting the approve those minutes, but that could fall outside of the general reasoning for calling special meetings - "The reason for special meetings is to deal with matters that may arise between regular meetings and that require action by the society before the next regular meeting, or to dedicate an entire session to one or more particular matters." RONR (11th ed), pp. 92-93

We absolutely cannot comment on what we think statutes mean and we don't interpret bylaws, but it seems a point of order was raised and no one appealed the ruling of the chair, so it seems the assembly agreed with that interpretation. Oh, and did you mean 15 days in your first paragraph, not 5?

Yes, but see your other thread as well. http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/31656-nominating-committee-member/

The assembly may consider only one at a time. "Rules which embody fundamental principles of parliamentary law, such as the rule that allows only one question to be considered at a time (p. 59), cannot be suspended, even by a unanimous vote." RONR (11th ed.), p. 263 and read the cross reference to p. 59.

If the motion does not require previous notice normally, I think the answer is no, based on this: "The requirement that business transacted at a special meeting be specified in the call should not be confused with a requirement that previous notice of a motion be given. Although the call of a special meeting must state the purpose of the meeting, it need not give the exact content of individual motions that will be considered. When a main motion related to business specified in the call of a special meeting is pending, it is as fully open to germane amendment as if it had been moved at a regular meeting. " RONR (11th ed.), p. 93

Judging by the original post, it seems to me that they're doing a separate ballot for each position, which explains why mjhmjh is worried about losing a quorum before they get around to completing the election for the remaining offices.

Getting home in time to watch the start of Monday Night Football versus getting home for the start of the 11:00 news?

They better get some support outside of those showing up now, because the ones who are coming to the meetings now are not going to adopt a rule which restricts them..

Since no one seems to be too upset about the lack of implementation, now might be a good time to propose an amendment to remove it from the constitution.

1) There is no expiration dates on adopted motions, so if your group hasn't acted on it, then it's about time to start since it's a part of your constitution. 2) Any member may move to amend or rescind that constitutional provision. The rules for such an amendment are found in the constitution itself.

If the rules in RONR apply, an applicable adopted main motion may be amended after it was adopted. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 305ff

Well make sure you add the "unless" part in my earlier reply. The assembly can agree to adopt it without debate or amendment, but that procedure cannot be imposed upon them by the presiding officer or whatever faction is pushing it.

Does some rule in your governing documents mandate this "no discussion or amendments" procedure? If not, it's not a valid procedure unless the assembly moves to suspend the rules and adopt the document (2/3 vote required) See RONR (11th ed.), pp. 266-267.

No, it's not appropriate. "A member of an assembly who acts as its parliamentarian has the same duty as the presiding officer to maintain a position of impartiality, and therefore does not make motions, participate in debate, or vote on any question except in the case of a ballot vote. He does not cast a deciding vote, even if his vote would affect the result, since that would interfere with the chair's prerogative of doing so. If a member feels that he cannot properly forgo these rights in order to serve as parliamentarian, he should not accept that position. Unlike the presiding officer, the parliamentarian cannot temporarily relinquish his position in order to exercise such rights on a particular motion. " RONR (11th ed.), p. 467 If the chair ignoring the parliamentarian's advice becomes a habit, he should resign. If this parliamentarian is not a member of the assembly he cannot raise a point of order or appeal.

I don't think so since he's absent. If he was present and the assembly wanted someone else to do the job, then yes. I think they can just elect a chairman pro tem. They could also consider setting an adjourned meeting if they knew when he was going to be available since it seems important to this group that the parliamentarian preside over this type of meeting.

If you can't garner a majority vote to postpone the motion or send it to a committee for further study, you won't be getting the 2/3 vote necessary to Object to the Consideration of a Question, so unless the motion violates the bylaws the only other way to get what you want is to make sure enough like minded members attend.

Why does Alan get two PRP designations after his name?

RONR doesn't mention anything about "a restating". What is it?

Thanks for this followup.

No. Regardless of whether or not each meeting is a new session of council, if you've had any meetings since November the time has passed for the need to use a motion to reconsider the vote. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 316 b )

Ok then. I think the answer is, no.

I didn't say that.

Yeah, that's what I was getting at.

If you just look at the ones on p. 263, my understanding of it is that a bylaw level rule is needed rather than a special rule of order, though I'm not quite certain about considering two main motions at once. I don't know any assembly dumb enough to want a rule to supersede that fundamental principle..

The 2FP calls it Happy Hour