George Mervosh

You're dealing with self-inflicted wounds here.  If you only put into the minutes what Robert's Rules says to put in the minutes your problems will miraculously dissapear.  See p. 146ff in RONR In Brief, or for the big book version, RONR (11th ed.), p. 468ff  Putting statements into the minutes is the first thing that needs to go, then your presiding officer is the second thing that needs to go.

Someone who likes to type a lot can finish the rest. 

Granted. But I would think that while presiding the Chair shouldn't have any official opinion on whether a motion comes before the assembly and by seconding the motion wouldn't he be opining that this motion should be considered?

That's why I suggested he not second it in post #5 (his motives would be confusing), he should just state it if he feels it urgently needs considered (which is certainly silently opining the motion should be considered) and take his chances on a point of order being raised. I'm not suggesting he routinely do this, in fact just the opposite. He should most likely announce there is no second and move on nearly every time.

In cases when the Chair has a duty to remain impartial (assemblies with about a dozen or more members or large committees) he should refrain from being partial (and seconding a motion demonstrates partiality). In cases when there is no duty of impartiality (committees and assemblies with about a dozen or fewer members) seconds aren't generally required. See FAQ #1.

But if the Chairman is a member of the group, the Chairman has the same rights of every other member (i.e. to make motions, second motions, enter into debate, vote, etc.), but should not to preserve the appearance of neutrality unless the group is operating under the 'relaxed' rules of RONR which Chris already mentioned.

"A second merely implies that the seconder agrees that the motion should come before the meeting and not that he necessarily favors the motion." RONR (11th ed.), p. 36 - as Mr. Mt. already mentioned,

As a pratical matter, if no second is forthcoming he can either state it without a second if he wants it before the meeting and take his chances on a point of order, or simply move on. His choice.

So the chair should disallow the motion if it is obviously being moved solely to gain more speaking time?

No and how would you know? If it's in order at the time in the precedence of motions, it's in order.

As does the 6th ("75th Anniversary") Edition, in exactly the same language, on p.153.

(I'm not sure what this adds to the discussion but I'm always glad for an excuse to dust off the ol' 6th.)

Use/Purpose /=/ Effect

So my question is why this use of Postpone Indefinitely is explicitly a legitimate use of the motion. The notion that it presents a different question is not necessarily sufficient, given the other circumstances where the chair can rule a motion to be dilatory.

As Dan noted, it's not a legitimate use, but it is the effect of the motion.

The 4th Edition specifically refers to it as the effect. "The Effect of making this motion is to enable members who have exhausted their right of debate on the main question, to speak again, as technically, the question before the assembly is different, while, as far as the subject of discussion is concerned, there is no difference caused by changing the question from adopting to rejecting the measure, because the merits of the main question are open to debate in either case."

Is that an explanation of why the subversion is allowed?

If a motion to amend, commit or postpone were made and before the assembly instead, would you object to a member speaking further on these motions if they exhausted their right to debate the main motion itself?

RONR also notes, that a motion like postpone indefinitely, which will kill the main motion for the duration of the session “necessarily involves debate of the main question”, unlike the other debatable subsidiary motions.

The difference with PI is the scope of what you can talk about, not that your right to debate it is continued.

I've just skimmed over this thread, and apologize if I've missed some of the nuances of the discussion...

In an organization where the board is a subordinate body, and assuming that the board does not have authority to take disciplinary actions against general members of the society, can that board adopt a motion censuring (the non-discipline version of censure) a general member of the organization who is not a board member?

Going back to Mr. Mervosh's statement in post #3, if a motion to censure is not used as "punishment" it reverts back to essentially being just an expression of opinion, nothing precludes the board from expressing its opinion about anyone under the sun, right? On the other hand, if a motion to censure must be an opinion directed at a member, does that mean that a subordinate board can only adopt a motion to censure someone who is a member of that body (i.e. the board) or someone who is answerable to the board (e.g. a member of a committee of the board)?

edited to add underlined text

Fixed to add in what I really said before what you said I said

Is a "punishment" censure more severe than a "main motion" censure?

If the bylaws make it one.

My unauthoritative opinion is, when censure is not used as "punishment" it reverts back to essentially being an opinion of the assembly, and can made for any "offense", in or out of a meeting.....it's still a main motion and it remains amendable to strike censure and insert commend, etc., is debatable and requires a majority vote to adopt. RONR (11th ed.), p. 124-125

In my mind, nominations from the floor on election night are dangerous. They allow for the possibility of an entire new slate of officers to be nominated from the floor, with that slate usually doubling the attendence at the meeting with their supporters and taking the election from those who have "gone through the process" of making their candidacy (sp?) known in advance. The people on the slate have no way to campaign for themselves and rally support since the opposition did not present itself until the last minute. Just my 2 cents...3 cents with inflation....

In my view, this kind of thinking is dangerous...

No rule in RONR requires a member to leave the room due to some real or perceived conflict of interest.

1) Yes

2) When no other motion is pending.

I am convinced that no meetings of any kind other than those held in a single room or area are held “under equivalent conditions of opportunity for simultaneous aural communication among all participants.”

After what Weldon and I witnessed tonight, either of us would be hard pressed to disagree

Yes, RONR is silent about it.

Establish a committee of key personnel who were there and can create a proper record of what occurred, then have that approved by the assembly (if you meet regularly).

It's wise to disabuse yourself of the notion that the number of voting members who must be present (a quorum) and the number of members who actually vote on a question are related.

To use an extreme and impractical example: If there are 100 members in a room and that's enough for a quorum, 1-0 with 99 abstentions will adopt a motion requiring a majority vote or a 2/3 vote.

You, or properly the chairman, can declare the uncontested elections as won by acclamation.

Fixed

The regular presiding officer. After you make your report, your job is done.

I sure hope that definition shows up in the 11th....

And your question concerning Robert's Rules is?

RONR notes that most committees don't take minutes like a regular assembly does, it just keeps a brief memorandum.

No place does RONR come even close to claiming that. The action taken would not be invalid because of the improper "calling for the question."

And paulc6, RP should know it.

She can make a motion for the previous question (or call the question) if she has the floor. The motion is not debatable and requires a 2/3 vote to end debate. She cannot demand anything like she did.