Baofeng Ma

"In certain tax-exempt organizations of a charitable or educational character, federal and state tax laws must be adhered to in the disposal of the organization's assets. Often such assets are distributed to societies with similar objectives, or to a superior body." RONR (12th ed.) 55:6-7

From above, I understand that the assets should belong to the public once an organization of an educational character (non profit and unincorporated) is dissolved, it is not acceptable to distribute cash in the society's account to its members, am I right? 

On 2/20/2024 at 1:55 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

To better understand paragraph 23:2(1), it would probably be helpful to also read the entire subsection Conditions Under Which Incidental Motions Take Precedence over, or Yield to, Other Motions (6:18–22), and especially this:

"… incidental motions have no rank among themselves and cannot be assigned positions within the order of precedence of motions, although they have individual relationships to that order which are described in the sections dealing with these motions. With the exception of a Division of the Assembly, incidental motions yield to the privileged motions and generally yield to the motion to Lay on the Table, unless the incidental motion arose out of a motion of higher rank than the one to which it would otherwise yield …

"In connection with motions that can be incidental to motions of any rank (such as Point of Order, Appeal, Suspend the Rules, Motions Relating to Voting, and certain types of Requests and Inquiries), whenever it is stated that one of these motions yields to “all motions” above a certain rank, the incidental motion nevertheless does not yield to any motion ranking below the one out of which it arises. For example, “A Point of Order yields to the motion to Lay on the Table, and to all privileged motions.” This statement is true without qualification if the point of order is in connection with a motion ranking lower than Lay on the Table (that is, a main motion or any other subsidiary motion); but a point of order arising from a motion to Recess would yield only to the two higher-ranking privileged motions—to Adjourn and to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn."

Thank you. I read these paragraphs several times. Very helpful. 

On 2/19/2024 at 9:47 PM, Atul Kapur said:

The point of order is not debatable in this situation because an undebatable motion (Lay on the Table) is pending (see 23:5 and 24:5(c)).

I see. It is because that the undebatable question, Lay on the table, is immediately pending. 

On 2/19/2024 at 9:34 PM, Rob Elsman said:

The motion to Adjourn is in order.  "...although it can be interrupted by a still-higher privileged motion."

Does it mean that the adjourn is in order, but the point of order is disposed first, and then the chair handles the adjourn, right? 

On 2/19/2024 at 7:41 PM, Rob Elsman said:

I don't understand the second question.

Let's make the same assumption: The main motion and Lay on the table are pending. Member A moves to amend.

The chair starts to state the question after it is seconded. Member B raises a point of order and the chair does not know how to do and "refers the point of the order to the judgement of the assembly and where the point thereby becomes debatable " RONR (12th ed.) 23:2(1)-below the 3rd black bullet point. 

If Member C moves to adjourn, is the motion out of order?

On 2/19/2024 at 7:38 PM, Rob Elsman said:

Let's suppose there is pending a main motion and a subsidiary motion, Lay on the Table.

A member then moves to apply a subsidiary motion, Amend, to the pending main motion.

I raise a Point of Order that Amend cannot be applied to the pending main motion in the current parliamentary situation because of the order of precedence of motions.

The third bullet is saying that the Point of Order must be disposed of before the question recurs on the adoption of the pending motion, Lay on the Table.

Yeah, it is a good scenario if the chair starts to process the motion to Amend and a member raise a point of order.  

RONR (12th ed.) 23:2(1)-the 3rd black bullet point: "With reference to either of the above cases, on the other hand, if a motion to Lay on the Table or a privileged motion is pending and a point of order arises out of the parliamentary situation existing then, the point of order is disposed of first, although it can be interrupted by a still higher-ranking privileged motion. " 

Does anyone have examples of the situation? 

For example, if member A has spoken for more than 10 minutes member B raises a point of order, does it belong to the situation?

Another question: if the chair refers the point of order that arises out the parliamentary situation existing then, and then it becomes debatable, is a motion to recess or to adjourn still not allowed?

On 2/6/2024 at 9:27 PM, Rob Elsman said:

You're raising a really excellent question.  Thank you for asking.

It is a rule of thumb that any motion that has the effect of permanently disposing of a main motion is debatable and amendable.  This has to do with the fundamental nature of a deliberative assembly.  Any exception to this rule of thumb (such as Objection to the Consideration of a Question or Previous Question) requires a two-thirds vote.  This rule of thumb explains why Postpone Indefinitely is so low-ranking in the order of precedence.  Since the very purpose of Postpone Indefinitely is to kill a main motion and suppress it for the remainder of the session, it is right that the assembly should have the opportunity to perfect the main motion before having to vote on whether to kill and suppress it.

On the other hand, the motion, Commit, has as its purpose "that the question may be carefully investigated and put into better condition for the assembly to consider".  This conflicts with the purpose of Postpone Indefinitely, so the adoption of Commit necessarily means that the assembly does not wish to kill and suppress the main motion.  That is why Postpone Indefinitely is dropped.  The assembly expects the committee to report the main motion back for further consideration (with or without recommendations).

Thank you for the great interpretation. Enjoy reading it. 

On 2/5/2024 at 8:40 PM, Josh Martin said:

I concur with my colleagues that Postpone Indefinitely is not "ignored" if Division of the Question is adopted. Rather, PI would be a pending motion for each of the new motions. It may well be that the assembly ultimately chooses to postpone indefinitely one, both, or neither of the motions.

Division of a Question implies the assembly wishes to consider the two parts of the question separately. It does not necessarily imply the assembly's views on the ultimate disposition of either part of the question.

It makes sense.

In addition I tried to read behind the lines. RONR 14:4 "If a main motion is referred to a committee while Postpone Indefinitely is pending, the latter motion is ignored and does not go to the committee, since the adoption of the motion to Commit indicates that the assembly is not in favor of postponing indefinitely."

Why is it not in favor of postponing indefinitely? If it is just because the assembly wants that (RONR 13:1) “the question may be carefully investigated and put into better conditions for the assembly to consider.", A motion to Amend can perfect the main motion as well, but why does not the adoption of the motion to Amend indicates that assembly is not in favor of postponing indefinitely?  Similarly a motion for Division of a Question can have the similar modifying effect on the main motion.  Is there any criteria of "in favor" or "not in favor" ?   

On 2/5/2024 at 3:00 PM, J. J. said:

I think so.  I know the question has come up in the past.

I searched and did not find any similar topic. It appears to me that if the division of a question is adopted, the assembly does not want to kill the question. So, should Postpone Indefinitely be considered to be ignored?  Or alternatively, with Postpone Indefinitely carried, can I assume that the assembly would like to decide whether each of two parts is killed?  

One main motion with Postpone Indefinitely pending. Division of a question has been raised and adopted. 

Question: Does each of two parts of the main motion carry with Postpone Indefinitely pending?

RONR 27:3

On 11/29/2023 at 10:06 AM, Shmuel Gerber said:

 

So far, all we know is that the quorum requirement is "more than 2/3 attendees"

 

Is it safe to summarize the two points of view like the following?

1. (more than 2/3) attendees = 9

2. more than (2/3 attendees) = 10

On 11/29/2023 at 10:06 AM, Shmuel Gerber said:

I guess we also need to know whether or not in this board "fractional persons" exist. 🙂

No, fractional persons do not exist.

On 11/28/2023 at 4:32 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Step 2 is incorrect.  Two-thirds of 13 is not 9.  It is still 8⅔ and always will be; and 9 is still greater than that.

They agreed that 2/3 of 13 is 8⅔, but they think 2/3 of 13 persons is 9 by rounding up. 

On 11/28/2023 at 7:03 AM, Dan Honemann said:

I agree with Mr. Katz, and I don't think I understand the argument being made in this second paragraph.  As far as RONR is concerned, 10 is more than half (9.5) of 19 (see 44:1), so I don't see why 9 should not be regarded as being more than 2/3 (8.666) of 13.

What, exactly, do they find in 44:2 (or anywhere else in RONR) that supports their argument?

Basically I think they calculated in two steps:

1. They calculated how many persons 2/3 of 13, 8.666. As there is no fraction, persons should be 9. 

2. More than 2/3 of 13 persons (9) is 10 (or 9+1)

They find:

44:1 (assuming that there are no votes having fractions of a vote, as may occur in some conventions)

44:3 (assuming that there are no fractions of votes) 

On 11/28/2023 at 6:52 AM, Joshua Katz said:

Do they actually say "more than 2/3"?

Yes, it is more than 2/3, an unusual threshold. 

Bylaws require more than 2/3 attendees of 13 members in the board meeting. 
In one meeting with 9 members attending the meeting, was the quorum present?

Some members said that 2/3 of 13 is 8.666, but it actually should be considered to be 9 because of no fractions in a vote (44:2), therefore more than 2/3 should be 10. The quorum is not present. 
 

On 6/5/2023 at 9:48 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

The rule in RONR (12th ed.) 24:3 states, "when the chair rules on a question about which there cannot possibly be two reasonable opinions, an appeal would be dilatory and is not allowed."

A member may appeal from the decision of the chair even if the decision is based on a rule, if the member disagrees with how the rule should be interpreted and applied to the particular situation. 

Thank you for the elaboration. 

On 6/5/2023 at 8:41 PM, Joshua Katz said:

Assuming there is a rule in the bylaws, not in the nature of a rule of order, preventing you from electing eight delegates (that does not provide for its own suspension), then I agree there cannot be two reasonable views on the matter and the appeal is dilatory. But that's a lot of ifs before the matter is obvious!

Let's assume the appeal is an established rules (not dilatory). Does the appeal can come to the floor? 

On 6/5/2023 at 8:23 PM, Joshua Katz said:

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're asking.

For example, 

A: I move to suspend the rules and elect eight delegates. (seconded)

Chair: The motion is out of order because it violates the bylaws.

A: I appeal from the decision of the chair. (seconded)

Chair: The appeal is out of order. The bylaws can not be suspended. 

An appeal can not come from known facts, evident truths, established rules or laws? 

Is it correct?

"measure" appears in many places, for example:  3:33(3)    14:9    17:2    35:3    37:17.

Is there any uniqueness about using "measure" instead of the main motion or other terms that are commonly used in RONR ?  

We discussed the issue today (Jan, 2nd, 2023) in our meeting. It looks that most people has a trouble of understanding the continuing breach. They believe that it should be ok if no one raises the point of order in time. 

On 12/7/2022 at 2:55 PM, Josh Martin said:

RONR is clear that an electronic voting method which does not permit write-in votes does not satisfy a requirement in the bylaws for a ballot vote. Additionally, RONR is clear that violation of that requirement is a continuing breach.

In other words, ballot voting contains two important parts( secrecy and write-in) in our case. If any part is missing during voting, it is not by ballot, and therefore against our bylaws, making a continuing breach. Correct? 

On 12/7/2022 at 2:55 PM, Josh Martin said:

RONR is clear that an electronic voting method which does not permit write-in votes does not satisfy a requirement in the bylaws for a ballot vote. Additionally, RONR is clear that violation of that requirement is a continuing breach. As a consequence, a Point of Order can and should be raised on this matter at the next meeting, and the election should be declared null and void.

In addition

46:2 "Strictly speaking, nominations are not necessary when an election is by ballot or roll call, since each member is free to vote for any eligible person, whether he has been nominated or not."

46:35 "... members still have the right, on the ballot, to cast "write-in votes" for other eligible persons.".

So no write-in deprived the members of this right.