Shmuel Gerber

I would have expected so as well, but that doesn't change my opinion about what the actual rules are.

No. The book refers in a number of places to reconsidering a postponement (see e.g. p. 112, ll. 28-31). I don't think it is alluding only to the brief interval after the adoption of Postpone and before other business is introduced, especially reading the text of SDC 8 of Postpone to a Certain Time and comparing the adjacent sentences to each other: An affirmative vote on the motion to Postpone can be reconsidered. A negative vote on the motion to Postpone can be reconsidered only until such time as progress in business or debate has been sufficient to make it essentially a new question. Thereafter, the motion can be renewed (see pp. 339–40).

If the assembly votes to reconsider an adopted motion to Postpone Definitely, then the main motion will also be pending during the reconsideration, so that if the motion to Postpone is rejected, the main motion (or whatever adhering motion was immediately pending when Postpone was first moved) will become immediately pending.

Looks like you guys could both use a new copy of the 11th Edition of RONR. 🙂

Hmm, isn't ammunition that stuff they use in guns?

Is that better than mulling it over in your beer? :-)

It may depend on how much hissing and spitting occurs among the audience (cf. RONR 11th ed., p. xxxiv).

I assume Tomm wants to make sure that if he buys a new edition now, it won't imminently be superseded by the 12th edition. But no need to worry -- there are yet many moons for enjoying the 11th edition before that happens.

And by "office," I mean "profile."

Click on the J to edit your office. If you then point to the right spot, there should be something to click on to upload the photo. On my screen, it looks like a picture of a mountain range.

You really oughtn't engage in this type of abuse (of the book).

I don't know what it is, but it sure sounds cool. 🙂

@Richard Brown and @Gary Novosielski -- Are either of you using any unusual browser plugins or services, such as Grammarly?

According to RONR, "A deliberative assembly that has not adopted any rules is commonly understood to hold itself bound by the rules and customs of the general parliamentary law—or common parliamentary law (as discussed in the Introduction)—to the extent that there is agreement in the meeting body as to what these rules and practices are." and "This book [i.e., RONR] embodies a codification of the present-day general parliamentary law." (The talking stick, however, may have a different idea. I suppose you'd have to ask about that in the Official Talking Stick Q&A Forum.)

Not exactly. If each meeting is a separate session, then what you say is basically true. However, the time limits are based solely on sessions, and each session may consist of several meetings. In that case, more than one meeting can intervene before the item is brought back (either at the same session or the next one, but not at any later session). Yes. (Assuming that certain other conditions are met: i.e., that the two sessions are not separated by more than a quarterly time interval, and that there is no specified portion of the membership whose terms expire, such as may happen in a board or committee.)

I think she would prefer that it be polited out of order.

You say, "State law supersedes the rules in RONR--read it carefully, and don't accept what others tell you it says." But from the rest of your post, it is obvious that you think we ought to accept what the regulators tell us the law says.

This is funny, even with the extra "e".

Maybe, but the previously cited passage uses that exact phrase It does?

I still see a Start New Topic button or link in the forum.

There's nothing wrong with voting on amendments affecting three parts of the bylaws in one motion. In fact, if the amendments are related in such a way that it would not make sense to adopt one and reject the others, then they must be voted on together. (Normally, however, the parliamentarian should not be the one presenting a motion.)

I would say that "all of them" refers to D & E, and "also" refers to all the others. It doesn't really matter, because:

I agree that the rule is confusing, but the bottom line is that if repeated balloting is necessary -- whether because not enough received a majority or because some were tied in the rankings -- all of the candidates who have not been elected remain on the ballot: all of the ones who received a majority but who tied for the last available place(s), and also all of those who did not receive a majority at all (and, perhaps unstated, also all of the ones who received a majority but came in below last place).

The cited rule (numbered by sentences) is: "(1) In an election of members of a board or committee in which votes are cast in one section of the ballot for multiple positions on the board or committee, every ballot with a vote for one or more candidates is counted as one vote cast, and a candidate must receive a majority of the total of such votes to be elected. (2) In such a case, if more than the prescribed number receive a majority vote, the places are filled by the proper number receiving the largest number of votes. (3) If less than the proper number receive a majority vote, those who do have a majority are elected, and all others remain as candidates for the necessary repeated balloting. (4) Similarly, if some individuals receive a majority but are tied for the lowest position that would elect, all of them also remain as candidates on the next ballot." In this example, there is no repeated balloting necessary, because five candidates are elected according to the rule in sentence 2. The last two sentences therefore do not enter in. In sentence 3, "tied for the lowest position that would elect" refers to the lowest position that has a majority AND has the largest number of votes -- in this example, that would mean those who are tied for fifth (or greater) place, not all those who receive a majority. But here, D & E are not tied for fifth place; they are tied for fourth and fifth places, so they each take one slot (doesn't matter which, since they are identical offices), and the election is over.

(I added that comment mainly so that this topic could qualify for the Advanced Discussion forum.)