George Mervosh

I read this and my first thought was - Shmuel Gerber got me again. Excellent work, Mr. Huynh.

Can he move to strike censure and insert commend?

RONR also says this for groups that conduct business that way: "A group that attempts to conduct the deliberative process in writing—such as by postal mail, electronic mail (e-mail), or facsimile transmission (fax)—does not constitute a deliberative assembly. When making decisions by such means, many situations unprecedented in parliamentary law will arise, and many of its rules and customs will not be applicable (see also pp. 97–99)." RONR (11th ed.), p.1 fn. Your group seems to have avoided that pitfall.

The second paragraph of Mr. Gerber's post in another thread regarding the power of an officer to do something might be useful to you, Guest Jeff. http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/25871-canceling-meetings/?p=146660 The topic isn't the same the point is.

The creation itself is usually done by a motion and as Mr. Huynh notes it can be populated in a number of ways. Sometimes bylaws authorize the chair to appoint the members but if they don't he can't assume that authority. See the citation above.

" It should be noted that a member's absence from the meeting for which minutes are being approved does not prevent the member from participating in their correction or approval" RONR (11th ed.), p. 355

Hmmm. We don't hang around with the same crowd. Nevertheless, unless you like to type, it's just as easy to put a caveat in your signature. Then you can provide the one word answers that we've come to know and love here on the RONR board.

Considering the first quoted post, don't look for anything under the rules in RONR.

No and no.

Gary, how do we know they have no right to attend, since Guest Susie didn't answer Guest Edgar's question in post #2? IF they have the right to attend, doesn't that affect the procedure for removing them for disruptive behavior?

Wait, so it's my fault? Oh boy.

I got elected President of a local chapter and didn't know about this strange motion to Reconsider. Posted a question on the old forum and Mr. Honemann and Dr. Stackpole answered it, and I never left this place. I've learned more from everyone here than I could have ever learned just reading the books.....and I still learn every day here. I'm a tad better at understanding the motion to Reconsider, thankfully.

This is the rule - " It should be noted that a member's absence from the meeting for which minutes are being approved does not prevent the member from participating in their correction or approval." RONR (11th ed.), p. 355

Ron, I think you got caught in that all too common trap of equating the number votes cast with the number of members who must be present to conduct business. She needs 100 bodies in the room for the quorum requirement to be satisfied, regardless of the number of absentee votes submitted, under the rules in RONR.

If you are referring to the unapproved draft the Secretary will prepare for your next meeting, the Secretary can simply put the correct information into his draft for presentation at the next meeting. If you are referring to minutes that have already been approved, but need correcting, the motion to amend them will have to be done in a meeting, and the correction is only listed in the minutes of the meeting where the correction took place. RONR (11th ed.), p. 305ff and FAQ#16 http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#16

Yes. While it's pending approval, it can be amended by a majority vote. After its adopted it will take a 2/3 vote, a vote of a majority of the entire board, or unanimous consent, either of which will suffice.

Ann, short of suspending the rules to permit debate in between rounds of voting, do you agree with the statement Dan made in post #2? If so, does that not limit us to one incidental motion that already exists? I'm confused how the non-existent incidental motion would get us there. Instead of viewing it as game playing let's view it as a usage no one thought of, until now.

It seems so and I appreciate the additional clarification. In the last sentence of post #18, I forgot that RONR states "When for any reason it is desired to reopen nominations, this can be done by a majority vote." (p. 288 emphasis added by me). Any apparently does mean any.

I was typing this as Mr. Honemann posted his reply. What about this for an example, Dan? In an election for Treasurer, where the incumbent, Member A, is running for the Treasurer's post again - "Member B, if elected Treasurer, will ensure that the society can once again begin receiving timely reports of our bank balances and dues payments received, and make sure that our bills will now be paid on time. I urge you to vote for Member B." (I don't want to inundate you with what-if's, but I agree there's a way to do this great care)

I wish, but I don't mind you doing the work for me. I have PL sitting right in front of me today at the office because of this good question and yes, there is precious little about debating nominations (just what you quoted) in PL, and precious less about it in RONR. It seems crystal clear that neither book provides for debating the qualifications of candidates other than when nominations are in order (as you noted in post #2), but I have to be honest, I had and still have my doubts about the propriety of re-opening nominations solely for the purpose of debating existing nominees, for the reason you noted in your first sentence of post 17 quoted above, but if you say its proper under RONR, I'll just note it and move on.

It's interesting to think that a motion to reopen nominations would be used for some purpose other than its express purpose of trying to nominate someone else, but rather, to use it to debate the qualifications of those already nominated instead.

I guess FAQ#18 wasn't helpful?

Accessing it via my iphone is easy and it's easy to read etc......but I can't sign on as a member for some reason and I'm sure it's my fault. I guess Guest_GM3 will have to do. Putting the pretty pictures together in the re-captcha isn't hard either. Perhaps if this gets move to the "Questions or Comments about.........." forum the Boss Lady will save the day, as she always does.