Shmuel Gerber

Right. If members decide to do something on their own when they have no valid power to act for the organization, they are responsible for what they've done. Although in most cases, I'm not so sure that the primary risk isn't borne by those who actually carry out the decision. But maybe that is a legal question rather than a parliamentary one. 🙂

No kvetching, no hissing, no spitting (p. xxxiv). Are parliamentarians just a bunch of killjoys? 🙂

Without disciplinary proceedings, I don't think the society can “order” the board members to repay unauthorized expenditures in the same way that it can order the treasurer to issue a check, or the secretary to issue a meeting notice. But the society can demand such payment the same way it can demand something from anyone who owes it money. The society can determine that the action taken was outside the board's authority and therefore the board members are personally responsible. And then if the board members don't want to pay, the society can attempt to force the issue, either through legal proceedings or an internal disciplinary process. My quibble is not with whether the board members may have to pay or do have to pay, but I'm just not thrilled with your proposed distinction between parliamentary requirements and legal obligations. There may always be legal considerations regarding the real-world ramifications of decisions made in a meeting; parliamentary procedure is merely concerned with how those decisions are validly made, and does not itself impose financial obligations. But it is true that RONR makes mention in several places of incurring monetary obligations, such as: • "It is different with members who have not paid their dues up to the date of sending in their resignations. Until they have settled their dues, the society is under no obligation to accept their resignations, and thus additional amounts may become due." (32:8) • "Members cannot be assessed any additional payment aside from their dues unless it is provided for in the bylaws." (56:19) • "Punishments that a society can impose generally fall under the headings of censure, fine (if authorized in the bylaws), suspension, or expulsion. The extreme penalty that an organization or society can impose on a member is expulsion." (62:1) • "The usual possible penalties for an officer are censure or removal from office, although in special circumstances others may be appropriate (for example, to repay into the society's treasury funds that the officer has been found guilty of misappropriating, perhaps with an added fine)." 63:33(f) But I think those are just useful provisions for a society to have, usually arising out of the nature of bylaw provisions, and not really matters of parliamentary procedure per se.

Well, I don't know why you keep bringing up your bylaws since they have nothing to do with Robert's Rules. 🙂 But I disagree that the vote in your rule refers to a requirement for considering the amendment. I don't see any phrase other than “the proposed amendment” that could grammatically be the antecedent of “it”. The portion of this rule that says “and it must receive …” is clearly separate from the “unless” portion that says “shall not be considered in order unless the propounder of the proposed amendment shall have first furnished a minimum of one thousand (1000) copies of the proposed amendment”. If the latter portion said “and it receives…” instead of “,and it must receive…”, then I might agree there is at least some ambiguity as to whether the vote required was part of the prerequisites for entertaining the amendment.

Interesting. I would call that a semantic error rather than a grammatical error, but either way I think the addition of "(sic)" just made your question a bit harder to read.

You mean because it begins with "Proposed amendments" but then later refers to "the proposed amendment"?

I don't think parliamentary procedure says anything about whether board members are required to repay things. It simply recognizes that a board has no more authority than it is given by the governing documents, and that members of an assembly who vote in favor of something assume responsibility for that thing if their vote prevails.

I'm curious why you think a "(sic)" is warranted here.

Well, Don and anyone else can complain as little or as much as they want, but the result still stands.

See definition 2a at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rescind rescind. transitive verb: take back, cancel

RONR doesn't speak of "bundling" motions, but any time a member attempts to move the adoption of several motions on different subjects at the same time, this can be done only if no member objects.

I'm not familiar with the interface for other users, but moderators have to check a box to turn on the notice that a post has been edited. Moderators can also see the notice that a post has been edited regardless of whether that checkbox has been turned on.

Nothing in this description resembles how business is conducted under Robert's Rules of Order. I think your guess as to what happens next, according to the way this board handles its business, is as good as ours, if not better.

It's always confounding when the book gets things wrong. 🙂

I don't see the problem with allowing a motion containing no rational proposition to be declared void at any time, since the motion contains no rational proposition. By definition, it makes no difference whether or not it remains in force.

I said, "If the motion truly contains no rational proposition, …"

In the common parliamentary law as handed down from the ancient wise men, I believe there is a well-honed distinction between stupid and absurd. 🙂

It does not seem to me that it does. I think we've discussed this recently in the forum. I don't like to disagree with Mr Honemann, but in this case I agree with Mr Martin's earlier response. I think that recesses and adjournments should not be considered special orders. But that is an academic question and is confounded by what is said in 41:59. For purposes of this topic, however, I think it is sufficient to say that the most reasonable interpretation of the statement in 41:61 that "At a session that already has an order of business, an agenda can be adopted by a majority vote only if it does not create any special orders and does not conflict with the existing order of business; otherwise, a two-thirds vote is required.", the only possible special orders referred to are those that would otherwise require a 2/3 vote to create.

Don't you think it is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that a motion must contain a rational proposition? (If it's not, it should be.)

You could move to amend the adopted motion by specifying language to clarify it, or you could move to rescind the motion altogether. Such motions are governed by the rules for the motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted. Any member can move such a motion, regardless of how he voted on the original motion. If the motion truly contains no rational proposition, you could try to raise a point of order to that effect. But, as you say, a majority thought the motion was good enough, so that does not seem like a successful route.

They are definitely not OK as is.

The premise was that the motion should specifically state that the member's rights are suspended "until reinstated by the membership". Under such a condition, I don't see how a motion to reinstate the membership can be viewed as rescinding the motion to suspend membership until it is reinstated. The previous decision is not being changed at all.

So then a motion to reinstate would not be amending something previously adopted.

I was actually thinking about the sentence "The Question and Answer Forums are provided to allow an open exchange of views relevant to specific questions of parliamentary procedure under Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised." But if we can get some converts from other parliamentary authorities, no harm done.

The rule in RONR 48:5 is that "The name of the maker of a main motion should be entered in the minutes…" "Owner of Unit 112" is probably not anyone's name. But I will concede that nothing in RONR says you should be too fussed if the maker of a motion is not identified by name in the minutes.