Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Shmuel Gerber

  • Content Count

  • Joined


About Shmuel Gerber

  • Rank
    @ShmuelGerber on Twitter

Profile Information

  • Location:
    Brooklyn, NY

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It seems highly improbable to me that this is what the provision was understood to mean when it was put into the bylaws, and I think it would be ruled out by RONR principle of interpretation #6 in 56:68.
  2. I don't see the point of guessing about all these things without knowing what the bylaws actually say, but according to this part of the question it doesn't seem to matter whether 4 years is one term or two.
  3. A society is allowed to take action outside of its defined object if permission to do so is granted by a two-thirds vote, but I don't see what that has to do with the present discussion. We were talking about the basis for the chair's ruling that a motion is dilatory or frivolous, and that the chair's determination on that question should be objective and not based on whether the chair believes the proposal is wise or foolish.
  4. You might consider this a flying car, although it's actually more a driving plane. https://youtu.be/kyj5WpkuiHI https://www.pal-v.com/en/purchase?country=US#purchase-section
  5. Well, you said that the purpose was to test the fire department's response time, which on the face of it seems like an actual proposal and not something totally frivolous.
  6. This is not quite correct according to RONR; see 41:2.
  7. The terms overlap. 1) If no agenda is proposed for adoption (or if a proposed agenda is rejected), then the session has only the order of business, if any, that is prescribed for that type of session in the parliamentary authority (such as RONR's "standard order of business"), special order of business, or bylaws of the organization. If none is prescribed, then there is no binding order of business: "If the assembly has no binding order of business, any member who obtains the floor … can introduce any legitimate matter he desires (within the objects of the organization as defined in its b
  8. Since the subject has been revived: I don't see how it is the chair's job to rule out of order a motion that a member is seriously proposing, simply because what it proposes seems to the chair like a foolish thing to do. A frivolous motion would be something like "I move to declare that the president of the organization is the king of England" (assuming there is no possibility of this being serious). For the chair to rule a motion out of order as frivolous or absurd, it should be frivolous or absurd on an objective basis, not simply as a matter of the chair's personal opinion of what the organ
  9. Looks like it's time for a refresher: https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/35113-primary-secondary-motions-amendments/
  10. The first article in the series was titled, "Significant Changes in the Tenth Edition of RONR, Part I". I leave it as an exercise to the reader to infer what the other two articles were called. (Hint to longtime members of the forum: No crocodiles or banana slugs were involved in the titles of these articles.)
  11. There was also a three-part series of articles published in the NP Magazine in the first three quarters of 2001. This is what it says on the point: Law: Procedural vs. Substantive It has long been recognized that "Parliamentary Law refers ... to the customs and rules for conducting business..." in deliberative assemblies. ROR (5th ed.), p. 15. (1) It deals with the process for consideration of decisions to be taken by a deliberative assembly, rather than with the substance of those decisions. It is not truly the province of parliamentary law or of parliamentarians to deal with t
  12. What do you mean by that? It was never past practice under Robert's Rules of Order, as far as I know, but a lot of people seem to have had that idea so it was addressed in the book.
  13. Since it's quiet around here, can someone post an example of such a motion? Yes, I need to get out more. I don't have a good answer for you, and I think the answer has changed since the time General Robert first wrote this rule. Maybe @Daniel H. Honemann can help. 🙂
  14. I see that you have something called the National Chapter. Are you sure that the provision relating to the order of business is not intended simply to apply to that chapter?
  15. Is this the Question & Question Forum or the Question & Answer Forum? (I'm just asking. 🙂)
  • Create New...