Shmuel Gerber

I think we all know what the gerbil ball committee's duties are, but it may take some time to figure out the rest.

What? Gary is leaving Brooklyn and he hasn't even said goodbye?

You can delete the record of the conversation from your inbox, but that won't delete it from the other person(s)'s side. Is that really so complicated (other than all those parentheses and s's)?

Does it always take nine months to get answers around here?

The mod can't actually mod the interface, although maybe he could pester the people who could pester the people who could pester the people who could modify the interface.

Well, a motion to Postpone Indefinitely is debatable. A motion to Postpone is debatable only as it relates to the merits (and details) of postponement, and only until the limits of debate have been exhausted.

But that doesn't mean they won't be deleted.

9 is a majority of 16, since it is more than 8. See FAQ 4.

The answer depends on whether the secretary reads from the notes when reading the minutes, or from a draft of the actual minutes book. The current edition doesn't elaborate on this topic, but you might want to read the second paragraph of this section from the 1915 edition, along with the footnote to that paragraph: http://www.rulesonline.com/rror-10.htm#60

If that's the case, then I guess the answers don't matter -- as long as Alex can read his own question. (Note: I am NOT suggesting that we reply to an all-caps question with all-caps answers.)

I'll second that. Here's to the next decade and a half, at least.

I don't know what you mean by "to vote yea/nay on the list of names, as part of the motion to commit." When a motion to Commit names the persons to be appointed to a special committee, members may offer different names, which should be treated as nominations in an election (see RONR, p. 496, ll. 18-25). Once this "election" part is completed, there is still the question on the motion to Commit itself. All of this seems to have been handled correctly, except for the parts where the chair did not permit any debate. Also, assuming that the motion specified that the committee would consist of 10 persons, the procedure of nominating a person to remove for each person to be added is a legitimate one, although the chair does not himself have the authority to require this procedure in lieu of the ordinary nomination & election process.

I agree; that situation is possible. But, by the same token, if a majority voted to amend the proposed rules, presumably they did not wish to adopt them in the original form, in which case the original motion may also lack the support needed for a two-thirds vote.

Obviously because the members of the Executive Committee are Very Important People with busy schedules and need more notice than the members of the proletariat.

You seem to be assuming that the content of the recording becomes the personal property of the secretary merely because the recording device it was made on is the personal property of the secretary. I think there is a legal question as to whether that assumption is valid. And obviously she is using it for her own convenience in carrying out the duties of the office, not her own personal convenience in general.

It seems to me that this entire exercise was in the nature of a motion to appoint a committee that the assembly had not previously decided to create -- i.e., it was a main motion to Commit. Therefore, after nominations are closed (and if there were any nominations, after the assembly has determined who the members of the committee would be), the motion itself should be debatable, independently of any debate on the nominations (i.e., the question of which names shall be included in the motion).

It might get you further if you didn't keep misspelling "premier".

That hasn't stopped anyone from trying, though.

But what about the amount that was previously set? It's not clear that you are talking about a board that has done things a certain way from the beginning. If, as you previously assumed, there was already a permanent dues policy in effect, then wouldn't that policy remain in effect until rescinded? I don't see how adopting a motion "that the dues for the following year will be X Dollars" will be sufficient to allow a majority-vote motion to set dues in subsequent years, unless the previous policy is also fully rescinded, rather than just being amended with respect to the upcoming year.

Considering his lack of professionalism, this secretary, Pro Tim, is inaptly named, isn't he.

If it's you going on vacation, how is it that I'm the one paddling a rowboat?

I am struggling to find the help (or the conveyance of any idea at all) in this "help". Please help.

I am struggling to find the relevance of this anecdote to this topic. Please help.

If this type of rule isn't a qualification for office, I don't know what is. And I don't know if you are using the term "attendant circumstance" correctly from a legal standpoint, but I think maybe your legal studies have begun to muddle some of your thought processes in the present matter.

Hieu didn't say the organization doesn't exist; he asked how there is an organization if there are no bylaws.