George Mervosh

Under the rules in RONR, a motion that was defeated may be renewed (made again) at the next session. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 336ff for full details. You should check with your board's attorney (or solicitor if you're in PA or some areas of the Free State of Maryland) to see if each meeting constitutes a new session. (edited to add that not only may the motion be made at the next session it could be made at any subsequent session, whether it's the next one or months/years down the line)

"If the law under which an organization is incorporated allows proxy voting to be prohibited by a provision of the bylaws, the adoption of this book as parliamentary authority by prescription in the bylaws should be treated as sufficient provision to accomplish that result (cf. footnote, p. 580). " RONR (11th ed.), p. 429 Whether this applies in your situation isn't clear to us since we don't provide legal interpretations.

"CHAIR: The question is, "Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?" " RONR (11th ed.), p. 260. At this point the chair has a right, but not an obligation to speak first. "When an appeal is debatable, no member is allowed to speak more than once except the presiding officer—who need not leave the chair while so speaking, but should stand. The first time the chair speaks in debate on the appeal, he is entitled to preference over other members seeking recognition. He can answer arguments against the decision or give additional reasons by speaking a second time at the close of the debate. He may announce his intention to speak in rebuttal and ask if there are others who wish to speak first." RONR (11th ed. ), pp. 258-259

No rule in RONR prohibits it.

Maybe. Long day.

Yeah, J.J. did an article on shift meetings. Tough stuff to figure out. Sadly, at least here, Josh and Ed provided the only applicable answers.

How is that possible if the first meeting adjourned? The next time they convene what if different members attend different meetings because of their work schedule?

Right. Any reports given in the absence of a quorum will not be an official report of an officer/board/committee.

" When assigned the floor, a member may use it for any proper purpose, or a combination of purposes; for example, although a member may have begun by debating a pending motion, he may conclude by moving any secondary motion, including the Previous Question (16), that is in order at the time" RONR (11th ed.), p. 378 This applies to the first member who has been assigned the floor or any other member who has been assigned the floor. But you're doing it wrong. A member moving for the previous question does not cause the main motion to be voted on immediately. See http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#11

Forget intent. I think you may need to forego readability and flow so this doesn't turn into a disaster waiting to happen.

They can be changed. Typically the assembly can delegate the task of renumbering to the Secretary when a new article/section is added, but in this case the assembly itself should handle it since that renumbering affects the meaning of one of the articles. which will need amending itself. See RONR (11th ed.), pp. 598-599.

That might be going a tad too far. It seems this presiding officer got the gist of a closed meeting: Member Y, sensing that consideration of this question should be kept within the organization, interrupts Member X's speech on the pending resolution by rising "to a question of privilege relating to the assembly." As directed by the president, he states the question of privilege: MEMBER Y: Mr. President, I believe this is a question we should consider in a closed meeting. With apologies to our guests, I move that the open portion of this meeting be declared ended and that our guests be excused. (Second.) CHAIR: The chair rules that the question is one of privilege to be entertained immediately. It is moved and seconded that [stating the question on the motion to go into executive session]. RONR (11th ed.), pp. 229-230 That said, I prefer the standard term - executive session - as well. Less ambiguity.

No. (It's best to start a new thread instead of adding on to an old one, especially a really old one. See this from Mr. Gerber http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/25416-important-read-this-first-faq-and-information-for-new-members-and-guests/ )

Is his answer there an answer to a question regarding a mistake of parliamentary law, or a mistake of fact or maybe both in this case? There seems to be no doubt about the vote required to adopt the amendment.

Yeah not everyone tries to catch the prize fish every time they toss the pole in the water! I think for good reason it was "artfully" avoided but I can assure you when the draft was initially composed it almost wasn't. Imagine trying to fit the sum and substance and varying opinions in your linked thread (and I think we even had at least one other thread on this issue) into a few paragraphs. Not possible. Now if some intrepid parliamentarian wants to go where other threads have gone before, it's probably better if it's done in a several page article with good examples. This question was never meant to go there. Perhaps the next editor will allow the next Q&A team to ramble on for several pages for one question but the very excellent current editor was probably wise not to.

That's the only time?

Not always. If there is a preset hour for adjournment the chair can simply declare the meeting adjourned at that time, or if after going through the entire order of business and making certain no one wishes to bring up any additional business, the chair can simply declare the meeting adjourned. See RONR (11th ed.), pp. 240-241 for more details

It think it's your garden variety motion to rescind what was previously adopted. So it's either a majority vote if previous notice is given, a 2/3 vote, or a vote of a majority of the entire membership.

She only has the authority granted to her by the bylaws and the parliamentary authority, but based on your short set of facts it seems like she is taking things too far. She'll need to cite what authority she thinks she has other than what's stated in the bylaws and RONR.

Whether your committee has been appointed with power to carry out certain tasks without the chapter's approval is not something we could answer without reading your bylaws.

They need not reflect this fact.

I agree with Josh Martin regarding what motion it really is. But if the member who can no longer debate the main motion (or main motion as amended) opposes the motion, it's probably easier to move to postpone indefinitely since all that's required is a second by another member and he can debate that motion, rather than hope he can garner a 2/3 vote to extend the limits of debate. If he favors the main motion, that's a different story.

The motion will be defeated. There is no tiebreaker.

If the member who has exhausted his right to debate the main motion (or main motion as amended) still opposes the motion after the amendments have been dealt with, he can move to postpone the main motion indefinitely if nothing else but the main motion is pending. Why would he do that? "Making this motion enables members who have exhausted their right of debate on the main question to speak further because, as explained under Standard Characteristic 5, the motion to Postpone Indefinitely, though technically a new question, necessarily involves debate of the main question." RONR (11th ed.), p. 128 So all may not be lost for this chatty member.

The passage Mr. Lages cites speaks specifically to your question: "Thus, if a series of debatable questions is pending and a member has, for example, spoken twice that day while the main motion is immediately pending, he has exhausted his right to debate the main motion; but, even on the same day, he can still speak twice on a motion to postpone the main question indefinitely, and twice on each amendment that may be moved, and so on." RONR (11th ed.), p. 389