Shmuel Gerber

I think you are confusing everybody with counterfactual hypotheticals. It seems that you agree with Dan's answer that no previous notice is required to receive the report of a committee at an earlier session than the one at which it was originally instructed to report, but that if no such notice has been given, it will require a two-thirds vote, or the vote of a majority of the entire membership, to do so.

You seem to be overlooking some of the basic rules regarding carrying business over from one session to another. "9:10 The only way for business to be carried over directly from one session to some later regular session beyond the next regular business session is by being referred to a committee that will report at that later session. "9:11 When a question is carried over from one session to another by any of the above processes, it remains within the control of the assembly as a question that has been temporarily, but not finally, disposed of." 10:26 "5) No main motion is in order that would conflict with or that presents substantially the same question as one which has been temporarily but not finally disposed of—whether in the same or an earlier session—and which remains within the control of the assembly (see 9:7–11, 38:8). If a motion that has been temporarily disposed of interferes with the desired introduction of another main motion, it can be brought before the assembly again (at which point the earlier motion can possibly be amended to encompass the idea of the desired new motion), as follows: "a) If it is in the hands of a committee, the committee can be discharged from further consideration of the question, or the vote that referred it to the committee can be reconsidered (so long as such reconsideration is permissible) and reversed (see 13, 36, 37)."

You mean something like this (although in the form of a main motion instead of applying to a pending resolution)? “I move to refer the resolution to a committee of seven, the chairman to be Mr. Brownley, six members to be elected by ballot from open nominations, and the committee to be instructed to report at the April meeting” (RONR (12th ed.) 13:25, emphasis added) We'll have to ask J. J. whether this motion is in order, but RONR seems to assume it is (because otherwise it wouldn't say that it is).

Looks like they didn't get the message.

In order for us to help you, I think you're going to need to provide much more information about the situation. Can you quote from the rule that establishes this position on the board and the members ability to vote? And it's still not clear what you mean by a preferential vote. The way that term is used in RONR it is a method of voting in an election where each voter can indicate first preference, second preference, etc., among the candidates. But I suspect you are using this term in a completely different way.

It seems to me that if a rule does indeed prevent closing debate, it would apply equally to doing so by ordering the previous question or suspending the rules by a two-thirds vote.

But the rules in RONR are all at the same rank, so it must be possible for all of them to apply. Rules in the bylaws supersede those in the parliamentary authority, so I think it is not unreasonable to think that a rule in the bylaws permitting members to speak a certain number of times and for a certain length supersedes a rule in the parliamentary authority allowing debate to be closed at any time.

What is a preferential vote member?

I think this part of the question is interesting. Ordering the previous question prevents each member from speaking twice for up to 5 minutes each time. If the bylaws have this rule, how do you know that closing debate is still permitted?

I don't see how this has anything to do with a posted agenda.

A member calling in via teleconference would not be considered to be present at the meeting (for quorum and voting purposes, etc.) unless your bylaws (or applicable law) allow such participation. If there is no such provision in the bylaws, the board could still allow the member to call in if it wants to, but he or she would not be able to vote and would not be considered present.

If the assembly adopts a motion requiring that a certain document be provided immediately, presumably a majority believe that it is possible to do so. If it is clearly impossible to do so, the motion would be absurd and the chair should rule it out of order when it is made.

An agenda includes items or classes of business that will be considered at the meeting. What do you mean by "including a board member" on the agenda?

I agree. This seems to me by far the most likely meaning of that strangely worded provision.

In my opinion, definitely not. But you could try googling it.

It's not clear to me exactly what you are looking for an example of, but many organization have their governing documents available online. The National Association of Parliamentarians has Articles of Incorporation posted here. But you raise an interesting question by alluding to the final two sentences in 56:18: "Some societies prefer to set forth the object in a preamble to the bylaws rather than in an article, in which case the preamble precedes Article I, and the numbering of the remaining articles described below is modified as necessary. This device is especially useful in societies incorporated many years before, whose charter no longer states its object in modern terms or with the specificity now desired." The last sentence seems to have been added in the 9th Edition of RONR. I don't think it is a simple matter to try adopting any statement of Object in the bylaws where the charter already has a different statement. The charter supersedes any conflicting provisions in the bylaws, whether they are in a numbered article or in a preamble. While it may be possible to specify examples in the bylaws of the types of activities the society will aim to engage in, these can in no way be interpreted to either limit or expand the object of the society as provided in the charter.

Maybe it's a board meeting held in the usual arena of another board so the home fans can jeer the away team.

Although empty suits might be. 🙂

Not every incidental main motion has the effect of changing something previously adopted. As noted in 10:7, "Referring to the Table of Rules Relating to Motions on pages t6–t33, most of the motions listed as “main”—with the exception of No. 1 (original main motion)—are incidental main motions in their usual application."

Please stop posting your reply as a new topic.

I think you're asking whether it is too late to make an appeal after a parliamentary inquiry or a point of order has occurred, because of the rule "If any debate or business has intervened, it is too late to appeal." Parliamentary inquiries and points of order are incidental motions and generally would not be considered business in the parliamentary sense, since they relate to the business at hand and are not business in and of themselves.

25:11 explains both "sides": "Rules protecting a basic right of the individual member cannot be suspended. Thus, while generally applicable limits on debate and the making of motions may be imposed by motions such as the Previous Question, the rules may not be suspended so as to deny any particular member the right to attend meetings, make motions or nominations, speak in debate, give previous notice, or vote." (emphasis added)

Well, at least we know that Paul is keeping up to date with the latest edition of RONR. 🙂

Based on the facts presented, it seems to me that has become the question only for those who want to make it the question. The two rules are not in conflict, because RONR provides that no one other than the member gets to decide whether that member casts a vote. But there are two rules we are talking about. One is "No member should vote on a question in which he has a direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members of the organization." The other is "However, no member can be compelled to refrain from voting in such circumstances." We are not debating either rule. We are debating why the second rule is being brought to bear when the first rule should be resorted to first.

I don't understand why you would need case studies in motions to amend something previously adopted in order to understand that such a thing exists. An assembly adopts a main motion. At a later time, it wishes to change some text of that motion, as applied to the future. A motion is made to amend it. The latter motion is a main motion of this type. Voilà. As Mr. Elsman noted, the entire section 35 is devoted to the subject, as well as section 36 in particular cases. There is also an entire section (57) devoted to the subject of amendment of bylaws, which is a particular case of a motion to amend something previously adopted.