25:10 Musings

[Tim Wynn]

 

On 5/5/2022 at 10:06 AM, Dan Honemann said:

As best I can determine, virtually all agree that, when there are no absentees, adoption by a two-thirds vote of a motion to suspend the rules will be necessary in order to enable the transaction of business that has not been specified in the call of a special meeting (a 9:15 violation), and if there are absentees, it can't be done.

Or if they don't, they should.  😀

On 5/5/2022 at 3:13 PM, Atul Kapur said:

I do agree (and that's where I started). 

However, I read Mr. Elsman's comments, your response of "well said", and Mr. Wynn's comment as saying something very different. So I am glad this is clarified.

I agree that this agreement has been agreed upon. My comments were mostly intended to ferret out Mr. Elsman's reasonings, which are always helpful and always serve to shed ample light on any parliamentary argument, whether or not those reasonings eventually agree with (virtually) all of the other minds. 

I fear that perhaps in some alternate universe (and quite possibly in this one) there are times when all of us are wrong and Mr. Elsman is right.   

[smb]

On 4/25/2022 at 2:04 PM, Josh Martin said:

I'm inclined to think that a 2/3 vote would be sufficient in both cases you describe and that the member would need to actually leave in order to prevent consideration.

At the risk of making this convoluted discussion more convoluted with another hypothetical, not necessarily.  Suppose the need to consider an item not specified in the call of the meeting is brought up at the outset of the meeting and there is a motion to suspend the rules to add it to the agenda.  That passes.  Now, before that matter is taken up someone decides to leave -- I don't think their departure would affect the ability of those remaining to take the matter up since the motion to suspend was adopted while the departed was present.

[Dan Honemann]

On 5/12/2022 at 11:19 PM, smb said:

At the risk of making this convoluted discussion more convoluted with another hypothetical, not necessarily.  Suppose the need to consider an item not specified in the call of the meeting is brought up at the outset of the meeting and there is a motion to suspend the rules to add it to the agenda.  That passes.  Now, before that matter is taken up someone decides to leave -- I don't think their departure would affect the ability of those remaining to take the matter up since the motion to suspend was adopted while the departed was present.

Are you referring to the dearly departed?

Anyway, the only thing Mr. Martin was saying way back on 4/25/22 was that a member leaving the meeting would prevent consideration of the motion to suspend the rules.