Series of errors

[Sean Hunt]

At any rate, there seems to be two arguable sides to the question depending on how different sections of the RONR are interpreted. Lacking an "official" interpretation we probably aren't going to get much further here. It becomes an internal political problem of our group which we hope can be "corrected" at our next Annual Meeting. In the mean time, it's going to be a long year.

Thanks for all your insightful comments.

The motion was adopted, and we can move on with our lives. This seems to me like the best approach.

[Trina]

The motion was adopted, and we can move on with our lives. This seems to me like the best approach.

Yup.

There's a lot of confusion about the rules exhibited in the described events, and much unnecessary rigamarole (and more confusion) in trying to make the actions of the assembly fit the rulebook. However, with the possible exception of a voter being 'intimidated' into changing her vote (post #1), I can't see that anything particularly reprehensible actually happened. To the original poster, I'd like to re-emphasize Mr. Wynn's point in post #3, that "If the motion had been lost at the first session. It could have been renewed at the next session, anyway."

[Josh Martin]

At any rate, there seems to be two arguable sides to the question depending on how different sections of the RONR are interpreted. Lacking an "official" interpretation we probably aren't going to get much further here.

I'm not entirely clear on what the "much further" is that you had in mind. While we are of different opinions here on the answer to the original question, pretty much everyone seemed to agree that the answer is really irrelevant, for the following reasons:

-It is too late to raise a Point of Order about the motion.

-The circumstances which led to the situation are unlikely to arise again.

-Even if the circumstances do arise again, there are other strategies which may be used to achieve the same result.