Shmuel Gerber

That's not what we're talking about here. Informal consideration, with respect to a motion that the assembly is actually considering, simply removes the limitation on the number of speeches each member may make in debate. My suggestion to rbk was that it is possible to request permission to informally discuss, at this meeting, the subject covered by the notice given at this meeting of a motion that will be brought up at the next meeting. Such a motion cannot be debated at all at this meeting, whether by informal consideration, in committee of the whole, or otherwise. The purpose of the brief informal discussion at this meeting would be to familiarize the members with the topic so they can be better prepared for it at the next meeting, or possibly to lead the member who gave the notice to withdraw it or modify it in some way, or to offer a somewhat differently worded motion at the next meeting.

See Gary's answer above. What would I say during a meeting to request such permission? I assume that the Chair would decide whether to grant such permission. Is the Chair's decision subject to appeal? "When notice of a bylaw amendment is given in open meeting, it cannot be considered at that time, except to be discussed informally and briefly at the discretion of the presiding officer (see also 43:31–34)." (57:14) "4:8 For a member to begin to discuss a matter while no question is pending, without promptly leading to a motion, implies an unusual circumstance and requires permission of the assembly (see 33:22) in addition to obtaining the floor. In larger assemblies, this rule requires firm enforcement. In smaller meetings, it may sometimes be relaxed with constructive effect if the members are not accustomed to working under the standard rule. Unless the assembly has specifically authorized that a particular subject be discussed while no motion is pending, however, such a discussion can be entered into only at the sufferance of the chair or until a point of order is made; and in the latter case, the chair must immediately require that a motion be offered or the discussion cease." "33:22 E. Request for Any Other Privilege. When a member desires to make a request not covered by one of the four types explained above—as, for example, a request to address remarks or make a presentation while no motion is pending—he rises, addresses the chair, and, as soon as he catches the presiding officer's attention, states his request. Although he does not have to wait for recognition and can make his request even though another member has been assigned the floor, he should never interrupt a member speaking unless sure that urgency justifies it. Generally, such matters are settled by unanimous consent or informally, but if there is an objection, a motion can be made to grant the request. If explanation is required, it can be requested or given, but this must not extend into debate. These requests should be treated so as to interrupt the proceedings as little as is consistent with the demands of justice."

Instead of making the motion and trying to postpone it, you can simply give notice that you intend to make the motion at the next meeting. Such a notice is supposed to be placed in the minutes. You can also request permission to informally discuss the motion so people have a better understanding of the issue. Alternatively, if you do make the motion and then move to postpone it, it's possible that if the motion to Postpone fails, it's because the assembly is ready to adopt the main motion right away. But even if the main motion fails, you can still give notice that you intend to move it again at the next meeting (if you think you can get more people to be in favor of it then).

Why? What are you trying to accomplish by doing this?

No, I don't think so. Can you be more specific about what actually happened?

Suppose the assembly has a rule that a roll call vote can be ordered by one fifth of the members present. This rule cannot be suspended if one fifth of the members present vote against its suspension. An ordinary two thirds is unlikely to prevail in this case, and there would probably be no point in even attempting to suspend the rule.

If the alternate is not serving as a member, then he or she would have no rights of membership. However, the entire validity of alternates depends on having provisions for them in the bylaws. If the bylaws say nothing about alternates, then there cannot be any alternates to begin with. So, if the bylaws do provide for alternates, then they may also provide for additional rights. For example, it is typical to give alternates the right to be present at all meetings, even when they will not be taking the place of a regular member.

This is what ROR says (§42, p. 179): The member upon whose motion the subject was brought before the assembly, is entitled to close the debate with a speech, if he has not previously exhausted his twenty minutes, but not until every one else wishing to speak has spoken. He cannot, however, avail himself of this privilege after debate has been closed.* * Formerly the member who reported a proposition from a committee was permitted to close the debate in the House after the previous question was ordered, provided he had not used all of his hour previously.

If the alternate member is serving as an actual member at the time of making the motion, then the alternate member can make the motion. It doesn't matter whether the alternate will be there at the time the motion is voted on. Perhaps we could give you a better answer if you explained why the alternate member is not voting on the motion.

Apparently for this person to be elected, I must be a registered Republican. 🙂 But have you served across it?

I think you've stated the case very clearly. With apologies to you and Dan, I don't necessarily agree. With apologies to Rob Elsman, I don't necessarily agree with him either. Like Mr. Justice Kavanaugh in Dobbs, I claim to remain "scrupulously neutral" on this question. 🙂

No, I don't think it is a typo.

Only the portion of the motion that has not been carried out can be rescinded.

The president has no authority to "table" the approval of minutes, or anything else. (Edited to add: …unless the organization's own rules give the president such authority; it will not be found in Robert's Rules of Order.)

Probably “Left Mic” and “Right Mic” were deemed too political. 🙂

An organization can have any number of officer positions whose functions are to assist with helping the meeting run more smoothly, such as secretary, doorkeeper, chief of tellers, sergeant-at-arms, vice-presidents, etc. However, in RONR only the chair and the parliamentarian are precluded from voting (according to specific rules) in general, and other members shouldn't vote when they have a specific personal or monetary interest not in common with other members on a specific question. Unless someone can show how the duties prescribed to the "center mic" in the organization's governing documents are functionally equivalent to the duties of chair or parliamentarian, then I see no reason to think that you should refrain from voting, if you are otherwise a voting member of the assembly.

I don't think it is a stupid question at all. And if the answer were choice b, then I don't think choice c would be a valid rebuttal. If someone submits and withdraws too many resignation requests within the time when they can be withdrawn -- whatever that is -- then the remedy is to seek a forced removal from office.

According to General Robert, the answer is a. See FAQ 18 at https://robertsrules.com/frequently-asked-questions/#faqs

That's interesting. I hope you realize, however, that being a parliamentarian who knows how a meeting should be conducted under Robert's Rules of Order has very little to do with being involved in a parliamentary system of government.

I understand that your intention was not to translate the entire book for your meeting. 🙂 What I'm questioning is the need for conveying the entirety of a particular rule, rather than simply what needs to be done in a particular situation. In your example, I would think that you would only need to address the situation if and when the third member has moved (or inquires about moving) to postpone the main motion to a certain time, and then you would simply convey that the motion is in order, and it applies to both the main motion and the motion to postpone indefinitely.

Why is it the parliamentarian's job to translate particular language from RONR? I would not think that is expected, at least not on the spot at a meeting.

I think that's a good suggestion. Thank you.

Actually, I think this last sentence of 48:5(2) is not particular to any or all of (a), (b), or (c) but probably ought to be its own separate item (2)(d).

Yes, all committee appointments made at a meeting, or announced at a meeting as stated in 50:13(d), should be listed in the minutes. Hint: "On motion of Mr. Dorsey, the motion to establish the camp, with the pending amendment, was referred to a committee of three to be appointed by the chair with instructions to report at the next meeting. The chair appointed Messrs. Flynn, Dorsey, and Fine to the committee." (48:8)

See RONR (12th ed.) 51:13, 51:19, 51:22, 48:5(5), and 48:16.