Shmuel Gerber

Such a motion would be valid only if adopted as a bylaws amendment, and it would have to specify the meaning of "temporarily."

This doesn't have much bearing on your question, but I will point out that whoever put that phrase in parentheses into this sentence in the constitution and bylaws probably wasn't thinking very much about it. At the next meeting of the general body, make and adopt a motion to declare the board's resolution null and void because it conflicts with the bylaws.

Meaning a fair amount of respect, or not much at all? 🙂

There are two motions -- the main motion previously adopted, and the motion to amend something previously adopted. Suppose that the society's annual banquet is to take place sometime before the next regular meeting. Also suppose that the main motion "to charge guests a $50 admission fee for the society's annual banquet" was adopted (let's call this Motion X), and then a member moves "to amend the previously adopted motion regarding the banquet admission fee by striking out '$50' and inserting '$55'" (let's call this Motion A). There is no rule that prevents laying Motion A on the table simply because it might not be taken from the table at the current session. And if it isn't taken from the table at the current session, then obviously there would be no point in taking it from the table at the next session. However, I agree that postponing Motion A to the next meeting would be absurd and out of order, because Motion X will have already been carried out by then.

It's not one or the other. The board may need to interpret the bylaws just as much as the assembly of members may need to. I agree that if the board disagrees with the assembly, the assembly's interpretation prevails.

But it seems that they are dealing with a motion to amend something previously adopted. Laying such a motion on the table has no effect on the previously adopted main motion, which remains in force until amended or rescinded.

I would hope not.

I made my comment because the apostrophe is in the wrong spot, but I wouldn't call that picking a nit. The error is real and the statute ought to be fixed.

I didn't think it was that far gone. Oh, well -- it wasn't a very colorful metaphor to begin with. Since the grapes are sour and the apples are rotten (including the ones that have been bitten twice), I'll just have my cake and eat it too.

That is truly an unfortunate situation, since (to the best of my knowledge) there is no parliamentary authority with that title. :-)

That's not what "sour grapes" is. The parable of the sour grapes would apply if the members of the losing side chose not to renew the motion, saying that it wasn't so good anyway.

Having to say it each time will keep her busy instead of just sitting back and relaxing. To you as well.

In my opinion, based solely on the information you have posted, I agree that this provision should not be interpreted to mean that the chairman can delegate all of her duties to a single District Chairman. There is no specific finite limit on the number of matters that may be delegated, but that has nothing to do with whether the chairman can issue blanket authority regarding all matters, including ones that haven't even arisen yet.

Oh, there's no doubt about that. :-) However, there is, in general, widespread popular confusion about the passive voice. While the use of passive voice often does lead to the complete omission of any agent from the sentence, in this case it hasn't. It makes no difference whether the rule says "Special meetings shall be held subject to the call of the President", or "Special meetings shall be held by the call of the President", or "The President may call special meetings". What's missing here is not who is doing the calling but rather some details about what is being called.

Excluding, apparently, the rule that rules should not be written in the passive voice. The rule states, "Special meetings shall be held subject to the call of the President." It seems rather clear that whatever grammatical form this rule might take, the agent is the President.

Which is why I said it's a problem. There's nothing in RONR that gives members a right to record a dissent.

RONR recognized long ago the variations that came into practice long ago in this regard. There is no use in pretending otherwise.

Somehow I don't think that Oksana was looking for personal opinions on this matter.

You can call yourself whatever you want, but if the organization insists (by rule) on something different, then you are not following the rule.

The problem is that members can vote in favor of the motion and then evade responsibility for it by recording a dissent.

It helps to know which direction you're counting in. In your new example, the rule allows a member to vote zero times.

Nope, it's not there either.

The rule in question is clearly a special rule of order, no matter what the organization calls it. "Whatever names an assembly may apply to its various rules, the vote required to adopt, amend, or suspend a particular rule is determined by the nature of its content according to the definitions given above." [RONR (11th ed.), p. 18]

OK, but has she done so? 😀

I agree that bylaws should be carefully drafted, but if they do in fact say "one term", I would note that someone who has served two terms had also served one term. (But oddly enough, he has not also served zero terms.)