Shmuel Gerber

I can try to find how to amend the message (if that's possible without reprogramming the code), but I am suggesting a broad interpretation of "objectionable." A message doesn't have to be offensive to be objectionable, and if it's not objectionable in some way, then there is no need for moderator action.

Those who regularly post on the forums here know that new users sometimes aren't sure where or how to post their questions or follow-ups. You can help the moderators respond to such situations more quickly by using the "Report" feature to let us know about any messages that need moderation, such as duplicate posts, posts that should be in a new topic, or posts that should be in a different forum. Since only the moderators will see these reports, feel free to also make the usual replies, such as warning other users that a post is a duplicate. Thanks!

Sure sounds like it. Next time, keep your bloody cuirass where it belongs, so everyone can see it.

It's not our fault, really; when it comes to stating the rules for unfinished usiness, the letter "b" just refuses to cooperate :-) But at least the typesetter for RONR didn't change them all to ( , like the message board wants to do. All this reminds me of that adage they're fond of at the SUM,* "Old Business never dies, it just gets put on the agenda for the next meeting." *Society of Uninformed Meetings

Perhaps Crystal's lack of certainty stems from the way item (b ) on page 358 is worded: << The heading of Unfinished Business and General Orders includes items of business in the four categories that are listed below in the order in which they are taken up. Of these, the first three constitute "Unfinished Business" ... : a) The question that was pending when the previous meeting adjourned, if that meeting adjourned while a question other than a special order was pending. b ) Any questions that were unfinished business at the previous meeting but were not reached before it adjourned—taken in the order in which they were due to come up at that meeting as indicated under (a) and (c ). c) Any questions which, by postponement or otherwise, were set as general orders for the previous meeting, or for a particular hour during that meeting, but were not reached before it adjourned—taken in the order in which the general orders were made. >> In my own opinion, which does not necessarily reflect the views of the other members of the RONR authorship team, the words "as indicated under (a) and (c )" serve no useful function and, in fact, cause the statement of the rule to be incomplete. In other words, if a question was unfinished business at the previous meeting because it was carried over from unfinished business from the meeting before that, and it was not reached at the previous meeting, then it would carry over to the present meeting as unfinished business that is taken up in the order in which it was due to come up at that (the previous) meeting as indicated under item (b ). (And, as all items that were unfinished business at the previous meeting but were not reached at that meeting do, it would come after (a) the question that was pending when the previous meeting adjourned, and before (c ) any questions which were set as general orders for the previous meeting.) Edited to add: I should note that the above is to address the question of "ad infinitum." Assuming that the matter started out as a general order (item (d) on page 359) in August and became unfinished business (item (c )) in September, it's rather clear that it comes up again as unfinished business (item (b )) in October, if it does not expire for some other reason as stated on pages 236-237.

My point was that when nominations are taken by ballot, nominations are not normally taken from the floor at all. So there would never be a time at which nominations are in order in such a way that a member would obtain the floor for the purpose of either making or speaking in favor of a nomination -- unless, as Dan suggests, the assembly authorizes additional nominations from the floor.

So I guess the debaters are out of luck when nominations are taken by ballot.

Sure, because it's not listed. Just for the fun of it, let's note that on page 387, RONR says, "When a vote is taken a second time for purposes of verification—as when a Division (29) is demanded—debate cannot be resumed except by unanimous consent." So, take your pick as to the proper inference: 1) By analogy, when a vote is taken a second time for other purposes, debate also cannot be resumed except by unanimous consent. 2) By exclusionary inference, when a vote is taken a second time for purposes other than verification, debate can be resumed except by unanimous consent. Think about it (but not much) and get back to me whenever.

I wouldn't concede that. First of all, it's not much of a concession to say that it might be appropriate to rule the motion out of order. Second, this is a straw-man argument. If the member is using obstructive tactics, such as constantly making points of order or offering multiple frivolous amendments, then the chair can refuse to entertain further motions from the member on those grounds alone. So, forgetting about the extraneous question of tactics that are actually dilatory, how could seeking the floor to speak in debate, while sticking to all the rules (germaneness, length and number of speeches, etc.) ever considered to be obstructing business? The business of a deliberative assembly is to deliberate (and then, of course, to decide). Suppose a member rises to speak a second time in debate, and it is "obvious" that this second speech is being made solely because the member wishes to "extend the debate". It wouldn't matter what the member had in mind, because what he is doing is perfectly legitimate. I think the same must be said here (and George M. already said it, much more concisely).

I don't know how much should be read into this heading of the word "Effect." The General needed to have something to include in each paragraph if he wanted to have an "Effect" paragraph following an "Object" paragraph.

No, I don't think so. There is even some question whether the board may censure a board member. I believe Dan Honemann may have already opined (here in the Forum in the not too distant past) that it could not, although unfortunately I can't recall the specifics of that thread.

The purpose of the footnote on page 643 is to dispel the idea, which is untrue (at least since the publication of the 11th edition of RONR), that an assembly cannot adopt a motion of censure against a member or officer unless there has been a disciplinary process and the "accused" has been found guilty. However, since you are so fervently enamored of this idea, I can understand your reluctance to be dissuaded from it by a mere footnote. Edited to put "accused" in quotation marks.

But, Jeff, this has nothing to do with your original question. Even if the nominating committee is permitted to nominate as many candidates on the "slate" as ask to be put on it, that has no bearing on whether yet more nominations may later be taken from the floor.

RONR does not define the term "slate of prospective officers", but it does note that commonly the nominating committee nominates only one candidate for each office. I think most people would understand that a slate consists of a list of one nominee for each office or position, in which case it would be improper for it to nominate more than one according to your bylaws.

Well, that's what you get for trying to combine "geranium against the wall", "dash of cold water in the face", and "bylaws's" (what is that orthographic monstrosity?) into the same paragraph.

"If a board or committee meeting is adjourned without any provision having been made for future meetings, the next meeting is held at the call of the chairman (see also pp. 499, 501)." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 238, ll. 4-7) (Please look out for alligators when coming down off the high horse.)