Shmuel Gerber

Although, there is no motion in RONR to reopen debate, could such a motion be considered to be an unlisted incidental motion?

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.

Perhaps after the member moving it has made a number of motions which have already ruled to have been dilatory, such as repeated points of order. As a chair, if the member told me he was moving it legitimately, I would take that at face value, and accept the motion, but if a member is trying to obstruct business, he might at least be honest about it, in which case I would probably rule it out of order.

Well, I suppose I'll concede that in that unusual instance it might be appropriate to rule the motion out of order, but members generally do not explicitly tell the chair why they are making the motion, so it seems we are in agreement that generally speaking, it will not be obvious that the motion to Postpone Indefinitely is being made solely to extend debate?

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).

As Dan noted, it's not a legitimate use, but it is the effect of the motion.

The 4th Edition specifically refers to it as the effect. "The Effect of making this motion is to enable members who have exhausted their right of debate on the main question, to speak again, as technically, the question before the assembly is different, while, as far as the subject of discussion is concerned, there is no difference caused by changing the question from adopting to rejecting the measure, because the merits of the main question are open to debate in either case."

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.

In an organization where the board is a subordinate body, and assuming that the board does not have authority to take disciplinary actions against general members of the society, can that board adopt a motion censuring (the non-discipline version of censure) a general member of the organization who is not a board member?

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.

Thank you Trina for finding the words that may bring this to a rational understanding. To save people from having to read all of this thread, the core question involves the Page 643 footnote that states "It is also possible to adapt a motion of censure without a formal disiplanary procedure".Does RRON intend this to mean that an assembly (the Board for example) may censure a member of that assembly (the Board for example)? Not members of some other assembly or body. Perhaps the RRON authors could define the intentions and proper application of the footnote.

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.

Of course, Edgar, the winner is the one that gets the most votes. Traditionally the way to that is to campaign. When someone is running un-opposed they would not normally campaign. Then, wait a second, suddenly 5 minutes before the votes are to be called, there is a totally new board nominated from the floor, and they have called all their friends to attend and vote them in, and those who are already on the ballot can't do that. This has happened once before in our Society. The attendance at that election meeting was well over 100 members, when we are usually lucky to get 45 or so at a normal election meeting. To me, that is stacking the deck against people who have the integrity to publically run for office...and a bad way to start a "new Board"...

Jeff

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.

Is there a definition for the term? If a nominating committee is charged with "presenting a slate of prospective officers" (quoted from our Articles of Inc.) does that mean one person per office or as many as they can find. In years past, our nominating committee acted as a sort of primary election and only presented one name per office, choosing who they thought was best to present for election, then the people that were not "chosen" were allowed to nominate from the floor on election night. The Committee of late has been chareged with finding as many people as qualify and want to run to present to the membership. I have a feeling they are reverting back to the old way in an effort to oust the current Board, so I would like to see if the term "slate of officers", which is NOT defined in our Artciles, has a definition under RONR, so I can make a valid arguement...

Jeff

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.

(... but ... high horse?? Really?)

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.

The other issue is board meetings's scheduling. The president objects to anyone's, other than himself, calling a board meeting -- but from what Guest ... Charles has posted, the bylaws don't give him any more authority to call a meeting than anyone else, including me, and sMargaret, and the geranium against the wall. "I'm the president, that's why"? Just plain darn well no, and lots of presidents need a dash of cold water in the face about what their job, by title, authorize them to do, without the bylaws's saying so.

Robert's Rules says that the bylaws should say when the board's meetings are scheduled, or, if they aren't scheduled, who calls them. Robert's Rules itself does not say when, if the bylaws don't do what they are supposed to. So you're hanging.

"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.)