Shmuel Gerber

I tried it, and I don't like it. Renewing a motion has a defined meaning meaning under parliamentary law. Try this:

Umm, so it looks like there is (yes) renewing, after all.

My answers are 1. No (or at least RONR doesn't say so). 2. Because someone looking in the index for "fundamental principles" might have been seeking "basic principles" as well. 3. As far as the rules in RONR are concerned, any "rule that embodies a fundamental principle of parliamentary law" cannot be suspended (cf. p. 263), and it is never too late to raise a point of order regarding any "action taken in violation of a fundamental principle of parliamentary law", since such action is null and void (cf. p. 251). There is no need to be over-concerned with exactly what a "basic principle" is, since there is no practical difference whether something is or is not a basic principle.

Page 607, ll. 18-21, in which RONR states, "The work of organizing and preparing for a convention normally . . . involves many committees, under the general direction of the officers and the board of the association" is indeed one of the intended references in relation to the rule on page 618 that "Until the proposed standing rules are adopted, the convention is governed by the rules in the organization's parliamentary authority." The placement of that reference next to the phrase "such as those concerning the seating of delegates and alternates" was perhaps inartful drafting, but I wouldn't call it a typographical error.

Probably it should. Unfortunately, there are quite a few mistakes in RONRIB, although this one was not yet on our list!

Note: The previous replies in this topic were split off from here: http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/25927-must-shall-should-may-c/#comment-146994 Please feel free to point out additional errors in new posts below.

Who says that the delegates actually get to present their report? Maybe we just want to make sure they are prepared to present an information report, to ensure that they don't fall asleep at the convention.

I prefer not to speculate about such things. Robert's Rules is more about how to guide the assembly so the meeting doesn't get derailed than about how to pick up the pieces from a flaming wreck. :-)

You seem to be ignoring the original poster's mention that the motion to approve the budget was not seconded. This fact would be notable only if the board of commissioners (or whatever this body is called) requires motions to be seconded, in which case the chair should have announced there was no second, and that the motion to approve has died for that reason, before entertaining any other motions.

Or perhaps after being punched with a beer bottle, the member needs some amending.

We can't interpret statutes here on the RONR forum, but a definition of "entire board" doesn't tell you anything by itself. It must be read in combination with some other provision (such as a quorum requirement) that actually uses that term. Since you are interested in filling vacancies in the board of directors, I suggest that you look for a relevant statutory provision regarding the filling of vacancies in the board of directors.

The topic title says it all. Click here.

And, lest there be any further misunderstanding (and as indicated by his status popup on the message board), Mr. Honemann is still an author of the current editions of RONR and RONRIB, and there ain't nothin' he can do to change that.

Note: This discussion has now been split off from an earlier topic.

I can try to find how to amend the message (if that's possible without reprogramming the code), but I am suggesting a broad interpretation of "objectionable." A message doesn't have to be offensive to be objectionable, and if it's not objectionable in some way, then there is no need for moderator action.

Those who regularly post on the forums here know that new users sometimes aren't sure where or how to post their questions or follow-ups. You can help the moderators respond to such situations more quickly by using the "Report" feature to let us know about any messages that need moderation, such as duplicate posts, posts that should be in a new topic, or posts that should be in a different forum. Since only the moderators will see these reports, feel free to also make the usual replies, such as warning other users that a post is a duplicate. Thanks!

Sure sounds like it. Next time, keep your bloody cuirass where it belongs, so everyone can see it.

It's not our fault, really; when it comes to stating the rules for unfinished usiness, the letter "b" just refuses to cooperate :-) But at least the typesetter for RONR didn't change them all to ( , like the message board wants to do. All this reminds me of that adage they're fond of at the SUM,* "Old Business never dies, it just gets put on the agenda for the next meeting." *Society of Uninformed Meetings

Perhaps Crystal's lack of certainty stems from the way item (b ) on page 358 is worded: << The heading of Unfinished Business and General Orders includes items of business in the four categories that are listed below in the order in which they are taken up. Of these, the first three constitute "Unfinished Business" ... : a) The question that was pending when the previous meeting adjourned, if that meeting adjourned while a question other than a special order was pending. b ) Any questions that were unfinished business at the previous meeting but were not reached before it adjourned—taken in the order in which they were due to come up at that meeting as indicated under (a) and (c ). c) Any questions which, by postponement or otherwise, were set as general orders for the previous meeting, or for a particular hour during that meeting, but were not reached before it adjourned—taken in the order in which the general orders were made. >> In my own opinion, which does not necessarily reflect the views of the other members of the RONR authorship team, the words "as indicated under (a) and (c )" serve no useful function and, in fact, cause the statement of the rule to be incomplete. In other words, if a question was unfinished business at the previous meeting because it was carried over from unfinished business from the meeting before that, and it was not reached at the previous meeting, then it would carry over to the present meeting as unfinished business that is taken up in the order in which it was due to come up at that (the previous) meeting as indicated under item (b ). (And, as all items that were unfinished business at the previous meeting but were not reached at that meeting do, it would come after (a) the question that was pending when the previous meeting adjourned, and before (c ) any questions which were set as general orders for the previous meeting.) Edited to add: I should note that the above is to address the question of "ad infinitum." Assuming that the matter started out as a general order (item (d) on page 359) in August and became unfinished business (item (c )) in September, it's rather clear that it comes up again as unfinished business (item (b )) in October, if it does not expire for some other reason as stated on pages 236-237.

My point was that when nominations are taken by ballot, nominations are not normally taken from the floor at all. So there would never be a time at which nominations are in order in such a way that a member would obtain the floor for the purpose of either making or speaking in favor of a nomination -- unless, as Dan suggests, the assembly authorizes additional nominations from the floor.

So I guess the debaters are out of luck when nominations are taken by ballot.

Sure, because it's not listed. Just for the fun of it, let's note that on page 387, RONR says, "When a vote is taken a second time for purposes of verification—as when a Division (29) is demanded—debate cannot be resumed except by unanimous consent." So, take your pick as to the proper inference: 1) By analogy, when a vote is taken a second time for other purposes, debate also cannot be resumed except by unanimous consent. 2) By exclusionary inference, when a vote is taken a second time for purposes other than verification, debate can be resumed except by unanimous consent. Think about it (but not much) and get back to me whenever.

I wouldn't concede that. First of all, it's not much of a concession to say that it might be appropriate to rule the motion out of order. Second, this is a straw-man argument. If the member is using obstructive tactics, such as constantly making points of order or offering multiple frivolous amendments, then the chair can refuse to entertain further motions from the member on those grounds alone. So, forgetting about the extraneous question of tactics that are actually dilatory, how could seeking the floor to speak in debate, while sticking to all the rules (germaneness, length and number of speeches, etc.) ever considered to be obstructing business? The business of a deliberative assembly is to deliberate (and then, of course, to decide). Suppose a member rises to speak a second time in debate, and it is "obvious" that this second speech is being made solely because the member wishes to "extend the debate". It wouldn't matter what the member had in mind, because what he is doing is perfectly legitimate. I think the same must be said here (and George M. already said it, much more concisely).

I don't know how much should be read into this heading of the word "Effect." The General needed to have something to include in each paragraph if he wanted to have an "Effect" paragraph following an "Object" paragraph.

No, I don't think so. There is even some question whether the board may censure a board member. I believe Dan Honemann may have already opined (here in the Forum in the not too distant past) that it could not, although unfortunately I can't recall the specifics of that thread.