Atul Kapur Posted January 13, 2024 at 07:11 PM Report Share Posted January 13, 2024 at 07:11 PM No. I don't conflate the chair's error in mistakenly declaring a motion adopted (or lost) and the actual vote requirement to adopt that motion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted January 13, 2024 at 08:11 PM Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2024 at 08:11 PM On 1/13/2024 at 2:11 PM, Atul Kapur said: No. I don't conflate the chair's error in mistakenly declaring a motion adopted (or lost) and the actual vote requirement to adopt that motion. Well, the chair (or the assembly )just claimed that the motion to adopt a special rule at a special meeting, was in order, was in order. Conversely, the chair declared that a majority of the entire membership, which is less than 2/3 of the vote, may suspend rules of order. I would say that neither is correct, especially if the chair declares that this was the correct vote and does not miscount nor miscalculate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wright Stuff Posted January 24, 2024 at 04:25 AM Report Share Posted January 24, 2024 at 04:25 AM I am SO confused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted January 24, 2024 at 11:58 AM Report Share Posted January 24, 2024 at 11:58 AM On 1/23/2024 at 11:25 PM, Wright Stuff said: I am SO confused. The confusion in this thread all stems from an initial failure to recognize the substantial differences between RONR's treatment of (a) special rules of order (rules which an assembly may adopt to continue in effect from session to session (8:14)), and (b) rules of order that an assembly may adopt to be effective only for the duration of the session in progress, or for a shorter period of time. This confusion was later compounded by an insistence that making a motion to adopt a rule described in (b) and simply calling it a special rule would somehow make it something it was not. I think if you read again all the posts in this thread, keeping these points in mind, it will all become a bit more clear. Or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wright Stuff Posted January 25, 2024 at 04:08 AM Report Share Posted January 25, 2024 at 04:08 AM On 1/24/2024 at 6:58 AM, Dan Honemann said: I think if you read again all the posts in this thread, keeping these points in mind, it will all become a bit more clear. Or not. I'll try as soon as I figure out whether the results of a ballot vote have to be included in the minutes.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted January 25, 2024 at 10:35 AM Report Share Posted January 25, 2024 at 10:35 AM On 1/24/2024 at 11:08 PM, Wright Stuff said: I'll try as soon as I figure out whether the results of a ballot vote have to be included in the minutes.... I'll remind you that the significant question is whether the results of a ballot vote have to be announced in full to the assembly, and also, and most importantly, that this is not the thread in which to bring up such a question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wright Stuff Posted January 25, 2024 at 02:27 PM Report Share Posted January 25, 2024 at 02:27 PM On 1/25/2024 at 5:35 AM, Dan Honemann said: I'll remind you that the significant question is whether the results of a ballot vote have to be announced in full to the assembly, and also, and most importantly, that this is not the thread in which to bring up such a question. It was not my intent to bring up a new question. It was a failed attempt at levity to refer back to a prior, quite intensive thread on that subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts