Shmuel Gerber

No. Here is the entire 33:21: "The foregoing paragraph applies only to papers or documents that are not before the assembly for action. When any paper is laid before the assembly for action, it is a right of every member that it be read once; and, if there is any debate or amendment, that it be read again before members are asked to vote on it. Except as just stated, no member has the right to have anything read without permission of the assembly. But whenever any member requests that a document that is before the assembly be read—obviously for information and not for delay—and no one objects, the chair normally should direct that it be read. If there is an objection, a majority vote is required to order that it be read. If a member was absent from the hall when the paper under consideration was read—even though absent on duty—he cannot insist on its being read again; in this case, the convenience of the assembly is more important than that of a single member." The sentence "If there is an objection, a majority vote is required to order that it be read." applies, even when a paper is before the assembly for action, except when it is the right of every member to have it read as stated in the second sentence.

You left out the sentence "Except as just stated, no member has the right to have anything read without permission of the assembly." That is what the majority vote requirement refers to.

See RONR (12th ed.) 41:61–63.

How did the errors get into the bylaws document to begin with? If the organization actually adopted the misspelled version, then the organization needs to agree to any corrections. But if the errors got there because someone did a bad job of retyping bylaws that had already been adopted, then I think the secretary could correct the errors (i.e., by restoring the originally adopted spelling found on an earlier correct copy), although it might be a good idea to obtain authorization from the membership to do so.

So does stating that a member wants to extend the meeting until 10:30 so we can complete the next agenda item count as debate or not? I think your entire acid test devolves to the meaning of "delve into," because clearly the purpose of making these brief remarks is to persuade members that they should vote for the motion on its merits.

This thread (started in 2013) is getting to be only slightly less old than the practice of casting a ballot on behalf of the assembly. It's still a good read, though.

Do you have a question about this in relation to parliamentary procedure?

But at a special meeting, any motion relating to the purpose of the meeting can be considered; it doesn't have to be a particular motion for which notice is given. A motion to Reconsider might be made, for example, for the purpose of offering an amendment to an adopted motion, or for the purpose of considering again one alternative that was defeated earlier in the meeting, after the assembly is unable come to agreement on any other alternative.

You gather correctly. 🙂 I don't know if I understand your reasoning, but in any event that rule you refer to is a very specific one, and I don't think it is easily extended even to other cases where the same or similar reasons might apply.

I agree. The existence of the motion acts as a sort of extra quorum or extra notice requirement, which is why I think its effect cannot be suspended by a two-thirds vote. I am having trouble seeing how the fact that a quorum exists or that notice of the meeting or of the main motion has already been given would change how the motion to Reconsider and Enter works. If the rule preventing taking up the motion the same day could be suspended by a two-thirds vote, the protection afforded by the rule would essentially be lost in many cases.

Suspended how, and by what vote? The rule allows any member* (with the help of a seconder if required) to delay the final vote to another day, so wouldn't that member's consent be necessary to suspend the rule? *who voted with the prevailing side

I don't understand how the fact that this is a special meeting is relevant. There could still be members absent who would want the opportunity to affect the result by attending on another day if they knew that an unrepresentative number of members are present on this day. The rules relating to a quorum apply equally to a special meeting as to a regular meeting, so I would think the rules relating to Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes apply equally to a special meeting as to a regular meeting as well.

The fact of whether it is a continuing breach is not relevant. There's at least some point at which it will be timely to raise a point of order that the meeting is invalid because it was not held within the time frame specified in the bylaws, and in resolving that point of order the question of absentee rights versus other rights will have no bearing.

This is circular reasoning. As Mr. Martin has noted, if the 60-day notice provision is inoperable because a different provision of the bylaws applies to the case, then there is no breach of the bylaws at all -- let alone a continuing breach. The principle of interpretation you are stating, that a provision of the bylaws that embodies what would be a right protecting absentees must prevail over all other conflicting provisions, seems to be something of your own invention. P.S. In general it would be helpful to quote at least part of the reply that you are replying to.

Which principle of interpretation does this statement accord with?

I was wondering how long until somebody filled the blanks. 😀

If you are making a (relevant) point, I am hard-pressed to figure out what it is. How do you explain this paragraph: "27:2 There are also certain motions which must be divided on the demand of a single member, in which case a formal motion to divide is not used (see 27:10–11). The eight characteristics below apply only to the incidental motion for Division of a Question."

That doesn't change the fact that the member is demanding that the question be divided.

Is that the Latin version of yea/nay? 😀

If you're reading anything into one phrase of a sentence without reading the entire sentence, then you're reading too much into it.

But what you quoted does not say how much time a director can serve. It says for how many terms and how much time he can be elected.

And how about 27:11?

I've figured out what the source of the trouble is. General Robert wrote, "… it is usual to proceed as in filling blanks, putting the question on the various forms suggested in the order of the time and trouble required for taking the vote…" (PL, p. 169) and "When different methods are suggested they are usually treated not as amendments, but like filling blanks…" (ROR, p. 96). But in RONR this was changed to "when different methods are suggested, they are usually treated not as amendments but as filling blanks…" The procedure I've suggested (and that I thought was intended in Robert's Rules) for dealing with suggestions for different methods of voting may not be treating them as filling blanks, but it is certainly like filling blanks. 🙂

I'm still saying what I said before: «My understanding of 30:4 is that when different methods of voting are suggested and the chair treats them as filling blanks, this just means the chair takes the vote on the different methods in the prescribed sequence (beginning with the method that takes the most time), and the first one to receive a majority vote is considered as having been ordered by the assembly, while the rest are ignored. There would not then be any need to vote on a pending motion relating to voting "as amended".» Setting aside, for the moment, the issue of how this is handled when an order for the Previous Question is in effect, do you agree that when multiple suggestions are made, and a majority vote is attained for one method of voting, this decides the question on how the vote on the main motion is to be taken, and no incidental motion on the method of voting remains pending after "filling blanks" in this situation? (I think the language on page 169 of PL somewhat more clearly implies this to be the case than does the language of RONR (30:4).) Maybe this is indeed some sort of unstated, modified version of filling blanks, but there is no universal procedure for the treatment of "filling blanks" to begin with. There are various procedures detailed at more length in RONR that are all called filling blanks, but they are not all treated the same way, including: • The prototypical case is that a blank can be created in a pending amendable motion by striking out something from the motion. For this type of blank, "the vote that fills a blank does not decide the main question or other pending question that contained the blank. When the blank is filled, the chair must immediately state the question on the adoption of the completed motion" (12:104). It is specifically with regard to the creation of such a blank that RONR (12:95(b)) states, "It is not in order to create a blank in a motion on which the Previous Question has been ordered," and I don't see this is necessarily applying to all other blank-filling procedures. • You've already noted that filling a blank in a motion that has already been adopted is treated differently, as described in the last sentence of 12:105. A blank that was created may be pending when the Previous Question is ordered on the motion that contains the blank, in which case a reasonable opportunity to make suggestions must always be given (12:101, 12:105). But if the blank is still unfilled and the motion is adopted, the assembly proceeds to fill the blank, and in this case obviously no further vote is taken after the blank is filled. • RONR says, "In completing a motion that simply refers “the main question to a committee”—either while the motion to Commit is pending or after it is adopted—the chair first asks, “To what committee shall the question be referred?” … But if different proposals are made, either in the form of primary and secondary amendments or simply as suggestions, the chair treats them as proposals to fill a blank (12:92–113) and puts them to vote in the following order until one receives a majority: (1) committee of the whole; … and (5) special (select, or ad hoc) committees, the one containing the largest number of members being voted on first" (13:12). When this happens after the motion to Commit is adopted without the essential details having been previously determined, then no further vote is taken on the motion to Commit. I think that your response to Dr. Kapur indicates that you agree that in such a case, members can make different suggestions even if an order for the Previous Question is in effect. Selecting a method of voting on a motion (30:4), or a method of nominating (31:3), or a method of voting in an election (46:30) may be different in some respects than these, and voting in an election ("A nomination is, in effect, a proposal to fill the blank in an assumed motion “that ______ be elected” to the specified position," 46:1) may be different still. They all may be described as "filling blanks," but they are not all the same thing or subjected to identical rules.

How does having a motion made and seconded prevent agenda items from moving forward? The making of a motion is only the first step in the process of debating a motion, not the last.