Shmuel Gerber

The chair should remind the members what the rules are, and then they have the responsibility to follow them. The chair only needs to make such a determination in questionable cases or when the rules have been breached. If a member misuses the opportunity to obtain priority in recognition in order to ask a question that does not require an immediate response, the chair could say, "In the opinion of the chair, this question does not require an immediate response. The chair reminds the members that requests for information entitle the member to preference in recognition only in cases where an immediate response is required. The member will please seek the floor in the normal manner the next time the floor is yielded. The chair recognizes Mr. X (the person who would have otherwise been granted recognition if not for the interruption)."

I think this is arguable. In some societies, it is a regular feature of debate that members of the opposing side will interrupt the speaker in debate to make a Request for Information. Although the request is stated in the form of a question, its real purpose is to make a point or refute what the speaker has just said. The speaker's response to the "request" is in the nature of a rebuttal or cross rebuttal. The speaker's ability to persuasively parry these "requests" can actually strengthen the effectiveness of his speech. On the other hand, his inability can embarrassingly show him up as unprepared, unpersuasive, or befuddled. I take it that what you find arguable is whether "most" requests for information are in the nature of requests that may interrupt a speaker or that entitle the maker of the request to preference in recognition. I have no statistical data on the overall frequency of the different types of requests made in different organizations. I am simply saying that I see nothing in RONR that gives preference in recognition to a member who has a question that needs no immediate answer over a member who wishes to speak in debate. Obviously, asking a question of the member speaking for him to answer during his allotted time in debate can only be done during that time, and therefore does require an immediate response — although the member has the choice of whether or not to allow the interruption or to respond.

Well, they could start by following the rules in RONR. The rule is that requests for information "are in order when another has the floor if they require immediate attention" (12th ed. 33:2(3), my emphasis) Further, "there are a number of purposes for which a member who has been assigned the floor may be interrupted (see 42:18–19). A member who sought the floor for such a purpose before the floor has been assigned is likewise entitled to preference in recognition." (42:7) These include "a request or inquiry (32, 33) that requires an immediate response" (42:18(e), my emphasis) The upshot is that there is no reason to consider most requests for information as "interrupting motions". Members with requests that do not require an immediate response should be required to obtain the floor in the normal manner and should not be given priority over members seeking the floor for other purposes.

Not necessarily. The commission is not the council. If the commission is considered a board or committee, then the rules for committees or small boards would be in effect, in which case the chair can make motions or informal proposals like the other commission members, and no seconds are required.

The problem has been resolved.

Update: The issue was resolved on August 26, and the search index is also finished being rebuilt. Searches should be fully functional now.

The forum has an achievement / badge system. Every 100th response posted by a forum member (other than a moderator or member of the RONR authorship team) earns the member an automatic "superstar" badge. (Unless a member posts a bunch of spam responses, in which case the member is likely to be flagged as a spammer, never to be heard from again.) I applied the system retroactively so that any forum member who has given 100 responses in the past 3 years has already earned this badge. These badges have no monetary value, are for entertainment purposes only, and may be revoked or modified at any time and for any reason or no reason. If they did have any value, such value might also be diluted by the arbitrary and capricious awarding of it by a moderator to other members. If you want to, you can manufacture a badge facsimile and wear it on a service ribbon or epaulets in your parliamentary brigade uniform, but I wouldn't recommend it (or even having such a uniform). 🙂

Update: The search feature is not generating errors at the moment, but the search index is still being rebuilt and the provider is still reporting that there may be issues with the server.

Please see the message linked below. Replies and updates will be available in the linked topic.

The forum provider reports that there is a problem with Amazon Web Services that is preventing searches on the forum. Also, the forum software was upgraded today and is busy reindexing all the posts. Please be patient and try again later.

Searching is generating error messages instead of results. I've reported the problem to tech support. (Don't you just love software "upgrades"?)

The forum site has been upgraded again. Please post any problems or interesting changes that you find. Enjoy (I hope).

The person setting up a poll in Zoom can make it either anonymous or not.

I would call it the annual fall meeting. You can't have two "annual meetings" of the same assembly every year.

When a vote has been taken by roll call, a member can move that the vote be recounted (within certain time limits). But in the situation you are referring to, it seems that everyone was clear about what the actual vote tallies were, and the only question was about what the rules say as to whether or not the motion should be declared adopted.

It may not be a requirement, but I think it's a very good idea to have an abstain option on an electronic ballot, if the system can recognize that it should not be counted as a vote. Marking "abstain" on an electronic ballot is the equivalent of submitting a blank ballot, which members should be able to do.

But presumably the adoptions of such a combined rule would require an 85% vote under the existing rule, which would sort of defeat the whole purpose of trying to adopt the new rule.

Meaning this page: https://robertsrules.com/qa-forum/

OK, try it now.

That is true. However, RONR does say, "Although in organizing a new society it may be feasible for the chair to appoint the nominating committee, in an organized society the president should not appoint this committee or be a member of it—ex officio or otherwise." (12th ed., 46:10)

RONR (41:34) refers to "Good of the Order, General Good and Welfare, or Open Forum" (without "For the").

The one in which by-laws do not exist. Try to keep up, man. 🙂

And, interestingly enough, an increase to $50,875 is an increase of 1.75%.

Yes, I think it is very appropriate.

The forum software has recently undergone a major revision, but I'm waiting until it is more stable before activating it. I may be able to do something about this problem in the meantime, but we might just be better off waiting for now.