Shmuel Gerber

The text that you quoted is a statement of a general principle; it is not a rule that can be universally applied in an arbitrary manner as you've suggested here.

Because it's not a rule of order at all, please.

In the absence of specific listed duties, I would think that an executive committee could at least make recommendations to the board of directors, implement decisions of the board when the details have not been fully worked out by the board itself, and implement decisions of the society's assembly in matters that cannot wait until the next board meeting. (Cf. p. 577, l. 34 to p. 578, l.4)

I think it is highly unlikely that the organization has provided for an executive committee in the bylaws in order for its members to simply chat and play games.

Aside from comparing (sort of) posting an inscrutable message to going on a killing rampage, I don't think the responses were unduly uncivil. This online community prefers helping those who demonstrate at least a certain minimum effort toward helping us help them. Yes, every so often we'll get a post from a grade-schooler helping his blind grandmother ask a question about parliamentary procedure, or from a non-native-English-speaker, or perhaps from a desperate board member marooned on a desert isle with only his fellow board members and an old Palm Pilot with some keys missing, but I think it's fair to assume that most of the sloppiness we see is due to, um, sloppiness. You can blame the latest brouhaha on the camera people. Or you can blame it on the camera, people. Or more likely the iPhone changing "can people" to "camera people". In any event, is it really so bad if guests are made to know that we like our nonsense to be posted in full sentences (or at least full clauses, or at least clauses of some type), with proper capitalization and punctuation? (Animated titles and dancing girls optional not needed.)

Well, at least those are not run-on sentences. They're so short, they're more like run-off sentences.

It's possible. But I don't believe anyone has drafted one on this topic yet.

I agree with 1stChurch, and with the others who have said that two members of a committee may call a meeting when the chair has failed to do so. And as Josh Martin has noted, attempting to schedule a meeting (and delaying the actual meeting because of your own illness and scheduling conflicts) is not the same thing as actually calling a meeting. You should also look at this earlier thread referred to by Hieu Huynh. It seems to me that your question has been answered as well as it's going to be answered on this forum, and pretty soon this topic is going to be locked closed.

As far as the rules in RONR are concerned, there is nothing wrong with a married couple serving as two officers in the same organization, including as two members of the same board.

I don't feel like reading it all again, but that question must have been covered somewhere in this topic. :-)

I think that moving to suspend the rules, or simply asking for unanimous consent, to divide the question is preferable because unless the member is very specific about why the amendment should be brought up again after the vote is taken on striking it out, such as your examples of postponing it or referring it to committee (and not simply taking an additional separate vote on the amendment itself), members are likely to not appreciate the procedural nuances, and once the amendment is struck out it will just be gone altogether. And I think that a member offering a motion to suspend the rules and divide the question should be, and would be under the rules in RONR, allowed to offer a brief explanation of why the division is desired.

Don't worry, folks; George is not imagining things. I split the most recent posts into a new topic.

I agree. Theoretically, he could do that, but I think it would be confusing and not likely to promote his desired outcome in most circumstances. Let's call the amendment in question "A". - If the member wants A to be adopted, he can just wait and see whether the whole series is adopted. If it is, then A is too. If it's not, then he can move the adoption of A separately afterward. - If the member wants A to be adopted and is opposed to some of the other provisions, he can make motions to strike out those provisions while the series is pending. - If the member wants A to be rejected, he can move to strike it out and not say anything about wanting to have a separate vote on it afterward. - If he just wants to see what the other members think of A, a vote on striking it while the series is pending will basically accomplish that (if no one confuses things by talking about wanting to move A afterward as a separate amendment regardless of what happens to the rest of the series). Striking out A and then moving it again afterward might be useful if one faction will vote against the whole series if A is included and another faction will vote against the whole series if A is not included, but in the end the people who were opposed to A might be sorely disappointed if it promptly gets adopted on a separate vote anyway. Alternatively, I think it would be in order to simply suspend the rules for the purpose of having a separate vote taken on amendment A. (And I'm pretty sure that at least Kim Goldsworthy would agree with me on that.)

I'm sure you understand what you're saying, but I sure don't.

How about just telling us how there is any loss of secrecy as compared to paper ballots -- unless, of course, records are kept of which gadget each member has and how each gadget's vote was cast.

During the consideration of the individual parts of the package, it would not be in order to strike out an entire part. (The purpose of considering the parts one at a time is to open them to debate and perfecting amendments, not to take a vote on whether that part should be included at all.) The appropriate time to move striking out an entire part is when the whole package is open to amendment after the individual parts have been considered, and at that time a motion can be made to amend by striking out that part along with the other parts that refer to it.

I think you meant the National Association of Parliamentarians. (Although NIP might be a snappier acronym that NAP.)

George was just being polite in phrasing his response as a question. What he should have stated was that inasmuch as RONR clearly states that the rule against motions to close or limit debate in committees is for the benefit of the assembly (and thus not for the benefit of the committee), you are absolutely wrong when making such statements as 'They (the parent assembly) are home, in bed. -- There is no one to protect -- at the moment the committee suspends the "debate" rule.' and 'The assembly is not debating. Therefore, there is no one left to protect by a two-thirds vote on "limiting debate" in a body separate from the parent assembly.' No, a committee cannot suspend a benefit, an advantage, or a nicety imposed on it by the assembly for the benefit of the assembly. But putting aside all this theoretical discussion, RONR states (p. 500), "In order that there may be no interference with the assembly's having the benefit of its committees' matured judgment, motions to close or limit debate (15, 16) are not allowed in committees." And it also states (pp. 397-98), "Motions to Limit or Extend Limits of Debate (15) and for the Previous Question (16) are . . . in the nature of specialized motions to suspend the rules . . ." So it is illogical to think that a motion in a committee "to suspend the rules and close debate on the pending motion" violates the "non-interference" rule on page 500 any less than a motion "to order the previous question on the pending motion" does.

You think that the chair's interruption of a member who has the floor, and who repeatedly reminds the chair that she has the floor, in order to improperly state a motion to adjourn the meeting is a minor violation? In truth, we don't know in what capacity the member actually had the floor and whether there was a time limit, but let's put that point aside for the moment.

All those in favor of suspending this whole discussion, say ay-ay-ay.

The subsequent editions do indeed refer to both types of proposal. You just have to know how to properly read those dots in "to suspend the rules and agree to [that is, to adopt without debate or amendment] the resolution . . ."

What rule in RONR is violated if you commit forgery or fraud? And can the trained monkey commit forgery or fraud? (Regardless, I don't think the monkey could be convicted of a crime, for the lack of mens rhesus.)

A member can move to suspend the rules and agree to a certain motion without debate, but then a two-thirds vote is required to adopt the motion.

Robert's Rules of Order was never intended to be purely descriptive, nor purely prescriptive. As stated in the Introduction to RONR (11th ed., pp. xliii-xliv): "Writing such a manual as Robert envisioned would amount to weaving into a single whole a statement of existing parliamentary law and a set of proposed rules of order. His idea was that the book should be written in a form suitable for adoption by any society, without interfering with the organization's right to adopt any special rules it might require. In the manual, rules taken from the practice of the House should be used except in specific cases where analysis showed that some other rule was better for the conditions in an ordinary organization—which did not, for example, have the enormous volume of business to be handled, the sharp division along party lines, or the extended length of congressional sessions with daily meetings." The specific answers to your question about Lay on the Table can be found in the paragraphs of RONR that you alluded to, which I will reprint here for the reading pleasure of those who won't trouble themselves to pick up the book and take a look. p. 210, ll. 5-14: "By adopting the motion to Lay on the Table, a majority has the power to halt consideration of a question immediately without debate. Such action violates the rights of the minority and individual members if it is for any other purpose than the one stated in the first sentence of this section. In ordinary assemblies, the motion to Lay on the Table is out of order if the evident intent is to kill or avoid dealing with a measure. If a time for resuming consideration is specified in making the motion, it can be admitted only as a motion to Postpone, in which case it is debatable." p. 215, ll. 10-12 and footnote: "As stated at the beginning of this section, the motion to Lay on the Table is subject to a number of incorrect uses that should be avoided.*" "*Some misuses of the motion to Lay on the Table probably arise from a misunderstanding of the practice of the United States House of Representatives, where this motion has gradually become converted to a special purpose that is not applicable in ordinary assemblies. The press of legislation in the House is so great that only a fraction of the bills introduced each year can be considered. With this volume of work under the two-party system in such a large body, the majority must be given power to suppress a measure without debate, and the agenda must be tightly regulated. The House rules therefore do not allow a question to be taken from the table without first suspending the rules by a two-thirds vote. Consequently, when a matter is laid on the table in the House it is virtually killed." p. 216, ll. 3-10: "The motion to Lay on the Table is often incorrectly used and wrongly admitted as in order with the intention of either killing an embarrassing question without a direct vote, or of suppressing a question without debate. The first of these two uses is unsafe if there is any contest on the issue; the second is in violation of a basic principle of general parliamentary law that only a two-thirds vote can rightfully suppress a main question without allowing free debate." If the motion is used for its proper purpose, then no reforms are necessary. The assembly has decided, without debate, to set aside the matter and it is up to the assembly to decide, without debate, when it should be brought back. Of course there is nothing wrong with the chair or a member reminding the assembly that there is some motion still lying on the table, but I think it would be futile to try to prescribe when a particular motion that has specifically been laid on the table should automatically be brought back for consideration.